This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Europe. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Europe|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Europe. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

Unreferenced article about a seemingly unnotable location. Couldn't find reliable sources anywhere I looked. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Europe, and Bulgaria. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This location doesn't seem notable for the public, based on the independent media citations out there (or lack thereof). Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Not notable. A search basically establishes it exists with a small dam and there is a small hotel but no widespread coverage. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT - it's been unsourced for almost 16 years, is from a red-linked location that might not exist, and seems to be promoting some campsite, but it's so poorly written that I can't tell for certain. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Palitsi Dam Complex appears to be a hotel. Not finding much about the actual reservoir or village called Palitsi, though it seems there were plans to improve the road between Palitsi and Chakali funded by the Program for Rural Development. Could imagine an argument to keep based on either WP:GEOLAND or WP:NBUILDING but we would need reliable sources demonstrating that either of those criteria have been met. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 in European women's basketball (A–K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

With this title, I would expect Information about the European competitions (for clubs or national teams), not a collection of results of national competitions which just happen to share a continent but are otherwise not related. Seems like a weird way to present these. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost entirely a difficult to navigate collection of game results and WP:NOTDATABASE so I think this should be deleted. Division of the list by alphabetized country name is also strange; why not by league/division or similar? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What do I need to do improve it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What do I need to do improve it? Can you give me advice please? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep A lot of info and very useful. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

2024–25 in European women's basketball (L–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [1] [2] [3] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Europe, and Armenia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Armenia, where I've just added an entry for the airline as it was not previously there. I'll note the article makes me raise an eyebrow as it says, and has a table stating, that the airline operated one Il-76 - but the article also has a photograph of an An-12 in the airline's markings. Hmmmm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a search conducted in Armenian revealed several sources demonstrating WP:N. The article can be expanded/improved. Archives908 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you link those sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above request, see [4], [5], [6]. A simple search yielded 22,500 results on Google. Just a matter of sifting through them to see if any more RS can be used. Will maintain my vote as keep and improve. Archives908 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 60 minutes in Albania's highest league. Nothing significant about the cited coverage, this is also just a WP:PASSING mention, this is WP:ROUTINE. Geschichte (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Albania, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Albanian protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An ordinary protest without much lasting effects, probably fails WP:EVENT A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article is now expanded and updated. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Marshall Islands relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Borderline hoax, with the first source not even supporting the most basic claim being made. Lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Oceania. Fram (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree that these pages seem to be generic listings that simply state relations exist and there is no individual notability to each. Would be better kept under an list page of "Albania diplomatic relations" or similar. Will also note these would be a good candidate for WP:MULTIAFD given their similarity/desire to avoid causing a backlog on AfD. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anonrfjwhuikdzz You that agree to delete this article, why don't you improve the article yourself so the article could be kept and inform the English Wiki visitors regarding the relations of these 2 countries? Instead of moving this page to Foreign relations of Albania, I think is better to have a separate article. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is pure WP:SYNTH. This source isn't even about bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar The source you mentioned doesn't completely refers to the corresponding part of the article, but explain the overseas missions of NATO, and the role of the United States with other NATO members on mutual military missions. I mentioned there Albania as part of NATO makes military trainings in overseas territories, which Marshall Islands, an ally of the United States, is located. These relations for these countries are not very huge, but moving in the future will be new developments, so the articles for these relations of Albania with Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Tonga will be expanded as new projects will be go through between these countries. See for example, the articles of Australia with these countries which are very tiny, also the relations of Albania with these countries are at a certain point at the moment. So moving towards the future, they will be expanded. I say the articles to be kept. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar I am saying not for other stuff that exists, but I have mentioned some relations of Albania with these countries. So these articles should be kept, and moving towards the future, new relations will go through and these articles will be expanded. I have mentioned when they have established relations, their political relations and their economical relations. I would be so happy if these articles will be kept so they can be expanded in the future. A "stub" template (optionally) can be added to the articles to mention: "You can help Wikipedia expanding these articles". There are too many short articles on Wikipedia that are separate articles. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Albania. There are references but this and the other articles are currently too short to stand on their own. Can always recreate them later when more information comes to light. Andykatib 20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Why to delete the articles instead of keeping them? You may keep them and later, when more information can be added regarding new relations between these countries, it is reflected on the article. There are also short articles on English Wiki. Please keep these articles. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't suggest a "merge" and claim "there are references" when the references are this terrible.

  • "Croatia and Marshall Islands establish diplomatic relations"[7] mentions Albania in a different context, not in relation with the Marshall Islands (the title of the source is also wrong in our article)
  • "Albania ambassador nominee Yuri Kim testifies before Senate committee"[8] has a short story about the American ambassador to Albania, and about the American ambassadior to the Marshall Islands. It has nothing about connections between Albania and the Marshall Islands. Fram (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram:, yep. I had a look at those sources and they don't talk about the topics that GeniVekaGV was using to support his statements. That was why I just used the economic sources but I am not if those sources are not suitable for citing. Feel free to revert my edits to the Oceania section of Foreign relations of Albania. Andykatib (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that final source with the imports and exports is really reliable, but in any case these small amounts of trade are trivial information for a general article about foreign relations of a country. Fram (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib @Fram I found a reference and I corrected the political relations section. That section is accurate now. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV The Finance Uncovered article you cited doesn't actually talk about Albania's relations with the Marshall Islands. It doesn't support the sentence that it is connected to. The economic relations section has similar problems. You need to actually quote what the source saying. Not bend it to what you want to say. Andykatib (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib The source mention both countries that the delegations of both countries have met together as part of the Marshall Islands-United States bilateral agenda. Albanian delegates were invited on this meeting and discussed with Marshall Islands delegates for cooperation. This source is more than ever correct for the relations of these countries. I can't find another source for them. It should be accepted. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I reread the article twice and it is an investigative journalism report about a Trump campaign aide Nick Muzin's international lobbying activities in Albania on behalf of a conservative politician there and having shell companies in the Marshall Islands. The article says nothing about bilateral relations between Albania and the Marshall Islands. You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Andykatib (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib @Fram Now that the articles were improved can you remove the deletion template and keep them please? Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV, sorry it is not up to us to remove the deletion template. It has to go through the process and an admin will make a decision. Hope you understand. Andykatib (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you believe this article has anything at all to do with the relations between Albania and the Marshall Islands? Andykatib already removed the worst other sources you added[9], but really, the question is not whether this article should be kept (no), but whether you should be allowed to continue editing. Fram (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib @LibStar @Fram Now the articles were improved. They show enough information for the relations of Albania with these Pacific countries, which are tiny relations. Maybe in the future, they will be expanded so the articles will be expanded too. I am to keep them. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV, please listen to what we have to say and calm down. Editing on Wikipedia means you need to learn how to abide by the community's rules and listen to advice. We don't want to ban you but you are threading on thin ice by persisting and refusing to listen to feedback and advice. Andykatib (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Can you improve the articles yourself so they can be kept? Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV, I am busy with other commitments. As @Fram has advised, there is insufficient material for these four Albania-Pacific relations articles. The trade relations sources that you cited and I formatted show the economic relations between Albania and these countries to be marginal. I have incorporated two of the more useful sources into Foreign relations of Albania but I think you should cut your losses and move on. It's no point dying on the wrong hill. Learn from this experience. Andykatib (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Solomon Islands relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence that this pairing has any notability at all. Fram (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Oceania. Fram (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree that these pages seem to be generic listings that simply state relations exist and there is no individual notability to each. Would be better kept under an list page of "Albania diplomatic relations" or similar. Will also note these would be a good candidate for WP:MULTIAFD given their similarity/desire to avoid causing a backlog on AfD. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anonrfjwhuikdzz You that agree to delete this article, why don't you improve the article yourself so the article could be kept and inform the English Wiki visitors regarding the relations of these 2 countries? Instead of moving this page to Foreign relations of Albania, I think is better to have a separate article. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The reason would be that these relations barely exist. They barely amount to anything, and are not important for either country. Geschichte (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte This simple content I provided to these relations is enough to inform the Wikipedia visitors about the relations between these countries. Each country has a relation with another country, no matter how small or huge is that relation with that country. There are missing articles on Wikipedia about the relations of some countries with each other, but I decided to write these relations

of these countries, since they are both part of many international organizations (which I have mentioned at these articles), Albania as part of NATO makes sometimes military trainings in overseas missions (which I have mentioned at these articles) and both countries, which are bordered by sea, make trades with each other and these trades include fishery, aquatic machinery, mobile equipment and other trades (which I have mentioned at these articles). So these articles for the relations of Albania with Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Tonga should be kept on Wikipedia and advancing in the future, new material will be added, as will be other new developments towards these relations. I say to keep them as in the future, more new different relations will be projected between Albania with these countries. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Albania. There are references but this and the other articles are currently too short to stand on their own. Can always recreate them later when more information comes to light. Andykatib 20:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Why to delete the articles instead of keeping them? You may keep them and later, when more information can be added regarding new relations between these countries, it is reflected on the article. There are also short articles on English Wiki. Please keep these articles. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV:, please don't take this personally. Contributing to Wikipedia means learning how to work in collaboration with others. Sometimes, this would mean compromises and changing our plans. It is not always our way in the highway. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Notability to understand the criteria for creating articles. We can copy the content to the Albania foreign relations page. If more information from reputable sources comes, then we can always recreate the pages. Andykatib (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Ok. If you think that these articles aren't enough notable to be as separate articles, you may move them to Foreign relations of Albania. If in the future they will be new updates, or will not be, I would like to be again separate articles for them. But please be informed that the articles for the relations of Australia with these countries are very short too. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV:, good we are on the same page. Some Wikipedia articles start of as sections of larger articles that get spun off into their own articles. Regarding Australia's relations with the Pacific, Australia is a major aid and trade partner with those Island states. Hence it would make sense to have individual articles on Australia's relations with different Pacific countries. Albania is a different kettle of fish when it comes to relations with the Pacific. Andykatib (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib I understand, but I have mentioned on these articles that Albania also has established diplomatic relations with them. On the page for Solomon Islands, there's a website of Solomon Islands which mentions as they have established diplomatic relations since 19 May 2011. For Marshall Islands, Albanian citizens have good relations with them as the holders of diplomatic passports can travel without visas to Marshall Islands. I have mentioned on all articles that Albania, as part of NATO, does mutual military training with other NATO members at some overseas missions, where these island states are located. I have mentioned that these countries are members of some International Organizations which they cooperate together. I have mentioned that both countries exports goods and services to each other, especially for fishery and aquatic world (machinery, tools) as per references added. I think this content is good enough to inform the Wikipedia users for the relations of Albania with these countries. There are also some relations of these countries (Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Tonga) with some smaller countries than Australia with lower potential than Australia which are separate articles on Wikipedia for them and they are short articles too, just to inform the English Wikipedia users for the relations of these countries. There are many short articles on Wikipedia. See for example an article for Onion Chip (a snack made from Onion): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_chip which is a very short article. I want these articles to be kept so they can be expanded in the future. If you want keep them, if you don't consider to keep them, move them to the Foreign relations of Albania Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV: Some of the sources you cited in the articles such as Croatia and Marshall Islands establish diplomatic relations for Albania-Marshall Islands relations does not mention Albania. The sources have to back up what you are saying. If not, then those sources should not be used. Andykatib (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib The source also mention Albania as the countries which Marshall Islands has established diplomatic relations with. See the article Visa requirements for Albanian citizens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Albanian_citizens#Diplomatic_and_official_passports_only where Albanian citizens holding diplomatic passports travel to Marshall Islands without visas. I think that the articles should be kept and to be added a stub section on them, to mention that they should be expanded if there will be new additional content. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Also for Kiribati I have mentioned that Albanian delegates and Kiribati delegates meet sometimes at EU-Western Balkan meetings, where participate the EU members, Albania, as part of Western Balkans and Kiribati as invited party. On the articles for Kiribati and Tonga I have mentioned their established diplomatic relations, as per Bilateral Navigator website which I added as a source, and which on that site are mentioned the leaders of Albania and the cooperation with these countries. There's also a section on the Foreign relations of Albania: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Albania that these countries are mentioned when the diplomatic relations were established, so I think these articles for the diplomatic relations should be separate articles. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @GeniVekaGV:, I have added selected content from those four entries into Foreign relations of Albania#Oceania. Hope this satisfied the Wikipedia community. Trade between Albania and the Pacific seems to be really miniscule. Some might even question whether those entries are necessary but at least it is better than nothing.

  Some articles you cited such as the European Union External Action Service's Kiribati-European Union High Level Political Dialogue does not mention Albania. Last I heard, Albania is not a member of the European Union. As I said, sources need to support the statements. You can't just use them to back up any statement. Andykatib (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Can you also add the political relations on that page. Or another specific page for the Foreign relations of Albania with these countries. Or if you can, keep also the articles but add the "stub" section on them so the articles will be kept and may be expanded in the future. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib See for example, on Arabic Wiki that the articles for Albania-Marshall Islands relations: https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/العلاقات_الألبانية_المارشالية and Albania-Kiribati relations: https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/العلاقات_الألبانية_الكيريباتية that have separate articles. Why the articles for the relations of Albania with these Pacific countries shouldn't be separate articles on English Wiki too? Especially that these countries are influenced by the British Empire. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @GeniVekaGV:, it is not up to me whether the articles are kept or deleted. They are subject to a voting process which lasts a week. I don't see how adding a stub will change anything. Regarding the Arabic Wikipedia have articles on Albania's relations with the Marshall Islands and Kiribati, each of these Wikis are autonomous and self-governing. Some have stricter rules than others. You could add them to the articles if you want. I will have to have dinner and go to work soon. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those Arabic Wikipedia articles don't actually talk about the diplomatic relations between Albania and Kiribati and the Marshall Islands. They just consist of comparison charts. These are helpful supplements for bilateral relations articles but are not the main meat. If those articles were subject to English Wikipedia's criteria, they wouldn't meet our standards. Apologies. Andykatib (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Can you add also the political relations of Albania with these countries to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Albania#Oceania

  If the articles will be deleted, the political and economical relations will be on that page. If the articles will not be deleted, both separated articles and the Foreign relations of Albania#Oceania section will provide the details for the relations of Albania with these countries. Especially the separated articles which provide the references on them. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Hi Andykatib! Please can you add the political relations of Albania with these Pacific countries to Foreign relations of Albania, like you added the economic relations. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright will see what I can do. Please try to learn from others and not to impose yourself on other people. It's not acceptable behaviour hear to tell other people to write articles for you. Thanks. Andykatib (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib @Fram I have corrected the political relations of this article too. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV The Millennium Challenge Corporation merely says that Albania and the Solomon Islands are aid recipients of this US govt aid programme. It doesn't say that they conduct relations through that programme. Please don't misrepresent what the source is saying. Andykatib (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib The source explains that they are both members of an organization and they cooperate together. It is very fine source related to the relations of these countries. I didn't found another source related to the relations of these countries, so it should be accepted as part of the article for the relations of these countries. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib @Fram Now that the articles were improved can you remove the deletion template and keep them please? Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do believe this belongs in the article? Fram (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV, it's not up to us to remove the deletion notice. It has to go through the deletion process. Please listen to feedback from fellow Wikipedians. Andykatib (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no meaningful relations, the relations is almost exclusively in a multilateral context. No significant trade, state visits or embassies. The WP:BLUDGEON on this page needs to stop. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of any notability for these barely existing relations. Fram (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Oceania. Fram (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree that these pages seem to be generic listings that simply state relations exist and there is no individual notability to each. Would be better kept under an list page of "Albania diplomatic relations" or similar. Will also note these would be a good candidate for WP:MULTIAFD given their similarity/desire to avoid causing a backlog on AfD.

  Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anonrfjwhuikdzz You that agree to delete this article, why don't you improve the article yourself so the article could be kept and inform the English Wiki visitors regarding the relations of these 2 countries? Instead of moving this page to Foreign relations of Albania, I think is better to have a separate article. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Albania. There are references but this and the other articles are currently too short to stand on their own. Can always recreate them later when more information comes to light. Andykatib 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib Why to delete the articles instead of keeping them? You may keep them and later, when more information can be added regarding new relations between these countries, it is reflected on the article. There are also short articles on English Wiki. Please keep these articles. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't suggest "merge" and claim "there are references" when they are this terrible.

  • "Bilateral relations"[10] is a bot-generated commercial webscraper which doesn't even support the one thing it supposedly references
  • "Imuna"[11] doesn't even mention Albania
  • Which leaves us with this, which informs is that in 2009, Albania exported a value of $88 in pasta to Tonga. Not 88 million, not 88 thousand, $88. Fram (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib @Fram I have corrected the political relations for Tonga too. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeniVekaGV:, that source you cited would be acceptable since it mentions both Albania and Tonga, and supports what you are saying. However, the references need to be formatted properly. Andykatib (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andykatib @Fram Now that the articles were improved can you remove the deletion template and keep them please? Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles haven't been improved though. Albania and Tonga both being at the same event[12] gives them both some (minor) relation to Latvia, not to each other. Fram (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have to agree @Fram. I tidied up the references in those four articles but most of them don't really talk about Albania and those countries. Have incorporated a couple of references into Foreign relations of Albania but it seems that GeniVeka is unable to see thing from our perspective. Hopefully we can reach an understanding with him or her. Andykatib (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no meaningful relations, the relations is almost exclusively in a multilateral context. No significant trade ($88 is a joke), state visits or embassies. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Foreign relations of Albania. There are (nominal) diplomatic relations, but what we have is basically one word in one announcement, which is already covered in Foreign relations of Albania. MarioGom (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of any notability whatsoever for these barely existing "relations". Fram (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Oceania. Fram (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree that these pages seem to be generic listings that simply state relations exist and there is no individual notability to each. Would be better kept under an list page of "Albania diplomatic relations" or similar. Will also note these would be a good candidate for WP:MULTIAFD given their similarity/desire to avoid causing clutter on AfD.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anonrfjwhuikdzz You that agree to delete this article, why don't you improve the article yourself so the article could be kept and inform the English Wiki visitors regarding the relations of these 2 countries? Instead of moving this page to Foreign relations of Albania, I think is better to have a separate article. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Albania. There are references but this and the other articles are currently too short to stand on their own. Can always recreate them later when more information comes to light. Andykatib 20:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andykatib Why to delete the articles instead of keeping them? You may keep them and later, when more information can be added regarding new relations between these countries, it is reflected on the article. There are also short articles on English Wiki. Please keep these articles. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't suggest "merge" and claim "there are references" when they are this terrible.

    • "Bilateral Relations"[13] is a commercial webscraper of no value, and doesn't support the claim it should reference
    • "Kiribati-European Union High Level Political Dialogue"[14] doesn't even mention Albania (which isn't an EU member)
    • Which leaves us with the utterly negligible trade between the countries[15]. Trivia which isn't worth mentioning. Fram (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andykatib @Fram I have corrected the political relations of Kiribati too. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @GeniVekaGV Those two sources merely say that Albania and Kiribati are signatories of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and are OECD aid recipients. They do not describe bilateral relations between the two countries. I don't see how this would change the outcome. It's akin to arguing the Earth is flat. Andykatib (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andykatib They describe the political relations between them and the organizations where they belong. The content and the references are well mentioned so the article is fine. I didn't found another sources regarding these relations. The content and the references should be kept. Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andykatib @Fram Now that the articles were improved can you remove the deletion template and keep them please? Thanks GeniVekaGV (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both having signed the same treaty[16] or being a member of the same organisation[17][18] is not a "relation" between the two countries. Such references make your case only weaker. Fram (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Have to agree with @Fram. There is not a very strong case for this and the other Albania-Pacific relations articles. We can't remove the deletion tag until the process is complete. Andykatib (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no meaningful relations, the relations is almost exclusively in a multilateral context. No significant trade, state visits or embassies. The WP:BLUDGEON on this page needs to stop. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable shopping center. Fails WP:NCORP. Ednabrenze (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT - vague, florid marketing language. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't seem to meet NCORP and I couldn't find much on a WP:BEFORE, but someone more familiar with Albanian sources might have better luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Advertising, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: As a recent creation with no independent or reliable sources, it should not have hit mainspace in the first place. MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Draftify, redirect or simply delete. The sources posted for this article are mostly primary and two sources are unreliable. I am unable to find any acceptable sources when doing a WP:BEFORE search. The company has been in existence since 1991, so there might sources available in European languages other than English. And I am not sure what the target should be for a redirect. I'm in agreement with any appropriate target. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kastrati Group Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBM Port

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Andorra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Without broader coverage of Michelin-starred restaurants in Andorra as a group, the topic does not warrant a stand-alone list, especially with only a single entry and no reasonable expectation of more in the near future. Mooonswimmer 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Lists, and Andorra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain: They are reviewed together. I think it shouldn’t be deleted because there is no reason that the restaurant is any less deserving of a place in a list than any others. It is just because there are no others in the same nation, so the best list to put it in is Spain. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per History6042. One item is not a list. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain: per History6042. I don't think an article with just one article is considered a list. Merge until more. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain: per History6042.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain since they are reviewed together, I think that makes sense. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain given the size of the list and the fact it shares both the guide and ceremony with Spain. Expandinglight5 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

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

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [19] [20] [21] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Europe, and Armenia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Armenia, where I've just added an entry for the airline as it was not previously there. I'll note the article makes me raise an eyebrow as it says, and has a table stating, that the airline operated one Il-76 - but the article also has a photograph of an An-12 in the airline's markings. Hmmmm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a search conducted in Armenian revealed several sources demonstrating WP:N. The article can be expanded/improved. Archives908 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you link those sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above request, see [22], [23], [24]. A simple search yielded 22,500 results on Google. Just a matter of sifting through them to see if any more RS can be used. Will maintain my vote as keep and improve. Archives908 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in the immediate days after the attack, no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED that establish WP:GNG. Open to an appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Egypt, Armenia, Czech Republic, and Germany. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17), where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17) per PARAKANYAA. I can't find any sustained coverage to indicate that this passes WP:NEVENT either. The suggested redirect seems appropriate. MCE89 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Willem Schreuder Jonkman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find anything else than genealogical data. Schreuder was indeed the son of the Governor of Ceylon but notability is not inherited. His name does not appear in the cited sources by Kroes, Wrede and Fieberger, that can be consulted online. I cannot find additional sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Netherlands. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article's creator PeterLSJ has not edited since 2018. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails both WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. Multiple search engines show nothing significant about the subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable person. Don't have any WP:SIGCOV, no credible academic profile to be found. Yousiphh (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the nom the subject does not have any notable coverage to sustain the article Scooby453w (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. No significant coverage, passing mentions at best. Leonstojka (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article does not yet appear to be notable for English Wikipedia Insufficient Sources, and the topic may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Lists of people, Music, and Popular culture. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova is a well-known figure in Azerbaijani pop music and is widely recognized by the public in the country. Her artistic career has been covered by numerous reliable and independent sources such as APA, AzərTAc, Musavat, and Report. She has been active in the music industry since the 1990s, performing solo concerts, with her songs broadcast on national television and radio, and has participated in several state-level events.

The article is based on verifiable and independent sources, and the subject clearly meets the notability criteria due to her impact on Azerbaijani culture and public recognition. For these reasons, I oppose the deletion of the article and recommend that it be kept.Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijan government should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I found sources stating this, but all are in Azerbaijani and I'm not sure if they're reliable enough.[25] [26] — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The official website of the President of the country has reported on this. Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A recently established non-profit organization, neither launched or backed by the Azerbaijani government, appears to be attempting to appropriate the concept of the Baku Initiative and amplify its significance. Notably, the Baku Initiative is an international effort originally led by the European Union. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Azerbaijan. Charlie (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are not a soapbox. Bearian (talk)

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

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

Life description has no credible claims to notability. Yousiphh (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete doesnt pass WP:GNG, only sources available dont have any WP:SIGCOV, no credible academic profile to be found. --hroest 13:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources can be found for the body she founded and the awards she has received. PamD 22:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The person is not a notable. Yousiphh (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  comment This can't be the same person? So maybe not the most notable person under his name. Most of the sources I see are Azerbaijiani or Russian Czarking0 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not the same person. Yousiphh (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belgium. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Dutch article at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Heylen has additional references that could be added here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The sources in nl.wiki shows enough notability. Svartner (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page was a longtime redirect to Monarchy of Belgium#Royal family, where the content is already covered. Breaking this out as a standalone page creates a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not have independent notability per WP:GNG; there is no coverage of the "House of Belgium" apart from the Belgian monarchy, in large part since there has been no period in which the House of Belgium has been separate from the throne of Belgium. Since an earlier WP:BOLD effort to restore the redirect was reverted, I am seeking community consensus to restore the redirect to Monarchy of Belgium#Royal family and avoid a content fork. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Belgium should be held to the same standard as the House of Windsor, which also does not exist 'separate' from the throne of the United Kingdom. USA1855 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) We do not rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments at AfD; we look to the notability of the subject in front of us, and (2) even if we did, the House of Windsor is the royal house of several other sovereign realms (Canada, Australia, NZ, etc) and therefore would not be able to treated encyclopedically within an article on the British monarchy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On that argument the following pages should also be deleted:

Alawi dynasty

House of Bolkiah

Chakri dynasty

House of Dlamini

House of Khalifa

House of Nahyan

House of Norodom

House of Sabah

House of Thani

Wangchuck dynasty

et cetera

Surely, you do not advocate for that? The number of sovereign realms that a dynasty controls is not used as means for establishing notability. USA1855 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you haven't yet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?

"However, such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency."

Nearly every other that only ever ruled over one sovereign state has a page. Why is the House of Belgium different? USA1855 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the House of Moshoeshoe of Lesotho is also a redirect so it's not a sole outlier. But the thing with the House of Belgium is that it is a continuation of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, simply renamed to refer to the King of the Belgians and his family, and so anyone seeking to build out a standalone article would need to find sourcing discussing the House as distinct from the monarchy, sourcing that exists for the other articles you listed. Right now you have three sources: a primary source treaty document, a primary source text on World War I that does not mention "House of Belgium" and a brochure on the Belgian monarchy that also does not mention the "House of Belgium." This is not the makings of a case for passing WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The page is pretty much a list of the man's works with no other analysis of the subject matter. There's no section on his personal life, views, etc. Would be OK revoking this RFD if these concerns were addressed but with the article as is, I don't know if this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Religion. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to easily pass WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I disagree with the idea that "analysis of the subject matter" requires us to have sections on his personal life or views. For an article about an influential academic/author, a list of notable works and an explanation of their contribution to their field of scholarship is exactly what an article should contain. In terms of notability, I found at least two journal articles directly addressing his body of work: Albert Piette and lived (non-)religion: Conceptual and methodological considerations and The Minor Mode: Albert Piette and the Reshaping of Anthropology. I expect that there is much more to be found in French. An extremely cursory search also turned up a large number of reviews of his books [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34], giving him a pass of NAUTHOR criteria 3. MCE89 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. But that begs the question, why were those sources not added in the first place? Surely the person who created the article should have done their research and added them if they're as reliable as you say they are. Or perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, the article was created in 2009. The standards for article quality and for notability were very different back then, and none of the sources I linked above had even been written yet at that point. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you say "perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there". Are you suggesting that I'm somehow misrepresenting the sources? MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No I am not. And the sources not existing at the time is a good reason for them not to have been cited in the article, thanks for bringing that up! Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Book reviews in the comment above are enough to pass AUTHOR and likely scholarly/academic notability. This person is indexed in 8 national libraries, also hinting at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and to the nom, WP:SOFIXIT (or at least conduct a good WP:BEFORE) prior to attempting to delete an article that clearly plausibly asserts notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability as an academic is low, h-index is low [35]. Number of books doesn't qualify for being a monumental amount of work. Not widely cited by peers. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested redirect without improvement. If WP:NFOOTY still applied, would meet that requirement, but searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, just stat pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion on whether he's notable, but @Onel5969: may I suggest that if you come across an active non-notable footballer, you take it to AFD or PROD rather than BLAR as you previously did here? Footballers often move between lots of teams, so redirecting it to the one the subject is at presently could quickly become outdated and incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Das osmnezz sources. I couldn't see the paywalled ones, but the rest seem satisfactory to me. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The sources presented are primary sources, and he only played one match of professional level in Norway. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus twenty in the Czech second tier... FromCzech (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources below which (AGF) seemingly show notability. GiantSnowman 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @Svartner:, @GiantSnowman:, @Clariniie: bruh I found [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], among many more Czech and Norwegiajn sources in a few mins. Young player with ongoing career and many sources and 20+ fully pro games. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Bruh?" You know Q+A interviews are not acceptable for passing GNG yet you insist on providing them as sources at AFD. In your "few mins" search you've managed to link the same an.no article twice. (BTW what's behind the paywall? Can you tell us what is contains?) Dougal18 (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't get past the paywall either, but the headline reads: "Tough months for Lucas (20). I don't blame anyone." The second heading reads "Lucas Kubr had to have ankle surgery last fall. Now he's getting better and better every day." So it looks like a mix of news reporting of the slow return to form of a player with an injury, and interview with him ("I don't blame anyone" clearly being his words). The source is primary on one count or the other. I don't see how that can be counted towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy:, @Clariniie:, Idk how secondary coverage combined with interview would not count... using that black and white logic all newspaper/magazine interviews mixed with secondary coverage with anybody (like [42] or [43]) would not be counted towards anything... First source: ("Lucas Kubr is now showing it in Brno, where he found his first Czech contract at the age of 20 with second-league Zbrojovka. It came after a two-year stint in Norwegian Bodö/Glimt, for which he is grateful, but he did not want to be dragged off the substitutes' bench any longer... Both as a person and as a football player, Lucas Kubr grew up in the family of Prague native Martin Kubr in Belgium near Genk, in a region crazy about cycling... He didn't enjoy pedaling. But he was fascinated by football"), Second source: ("He is finally enjoying football again, and to a significant extent. Lucas Kubr desperately needed a lot of time on the pitch. After a season in which he played only a minimum of matches for the Norwegian team Bodo/Glimt, the left-back only welcomed the summer offer from Zbrojovka. He plays regularly for the Brno club, often in the starting lineup, and on Friday he even enjoyed his first goal in South Moravia against Slavia B. It was enough for a 1:1 draw. The 20-year-old player has mixed memories of his time at the elite Norwegian club. He gained valuable experience from an interesting destination, and at the beginning of last season it looked like he could make a significant impact. He started Bodo/Glimt's journey in the preliminary rounds of the European Conference League on the bench, from which he also watched the successful double match against Bohemians Prague, but that almost ended Kubra's anabasis in the first team. He only played in two cup matches, only collecting starts for the Norwegian club's reserve team. He welcomed his summer return to the Czech Republic, even though he is not currently experiencing many happy moments with Zbrojovka. The Brno team is still stuck in the relegation positions in the second league"), Third source just from the section without paywall: ("Grandma is from Palermo. Mom is Belgian, dad is from Prague, aunt is German. He was born near Genk, Belgium, and plays above the Arctic Circle in Norway... he rushed to Prague to visit his grandfather, who lives alone in a large house above Smíchov"), Fourth source: ("He lives an extraordinary life. With a Czech father, an Italian mother, a birthplace in Belgium, a current position in Norway beyond the Arctic Circle and a secret desire to become the new David Jurásek. Lucas Kubr (19), do you know him? The fast left-back from Bodo/Glimt was only recently discovered for domestic football by coach Radek Bejbl. The native of the Flemish city of Tongeren is an option for Jurásek's position in the newly formed U21 national team for Jan Suchopárek... Attention, a few days ago the youngster was close to being loaned out to the Czech league, according to iSport information specifically in České Budějovice. But the whole thing is said to have fallen through. It is still possible that the nice guy Lucas Kubr will arrive in the Czech Republic at the beginning of August with the Norwegian team for the rematch of the second preliminary round of the Conference League at Letná against Bohemians. Even if as a substitute"), and the fifth and sixth sources definitely have secondary coverage behind paywall. On top of this I can even find more sources and he will definiftely get more as his nascent pro and international career progresses. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The added sources are just match reporting and other primary reporting. For GNG we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources. We don't have those. I am a little troubled by a !vote that says "AGF seemingly show notability". At AfD we need to be discussing and reading the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we need multiple secondary SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Even just one provided is still too weak to establish notability. By the way, did you mean passing mention in match reports? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the comment. In answer to your question, it is passing anyway, but no - the problem is that even if you have a match report that has something that scrapes through SIGCOV by describing a good game that the player had, the account of the match is a primary source. Someone has watched the match and written down what they saw. The very definition of a primary source. Many people seem to assume that such accounts show notability (and such people have perhaps never !voted to delete an article in any AfD ever), but notability is shown when someone takes such accounts and writes a source that synthesises them to tell us something biographical of the player. For instance, if someone takes multiple accounts and describes how the player pioneered a new attack, or somesuch, then the synthesis and biographical account will be a secondary source demonstrating that the player is not just a player but a notable one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See what I wrote above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This report includes detailed analysis of his background and movement between Norway and the Czech Republic. This short article gives details on his personal background. This article is an extended profile. Easily satisfies GNG/BIO. Also there is simply no community consensus that match reports can per se be discounted as "primary"; it is simply not that binary. A match report can contain all sorts of information referencing past match histories, player interactions, differences between matches in a current season, coach/player styles, coach/player development etc. A match report which contains detailed analysis of a particular player's contribution could well count *towards* notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Match reports certainly are, prima facie the epitome of primary sources. They are an eyewitness report of a match. Your point, I think, is that even primary sources may contain information that may be considered secondary, depending on the question asked. An example from an unrelated area: a PhD thesis is a primary source, but a thesis studying a school might contain historical background of the school culled from other sources, and that background might be secondary. That does not make the thesis a secondary source. But when I said the sources were match reporting and other primary reporting, I did not assert a "binary" at all. I specifically said that what I read was primary reporting. So, let's look at these.

  • Your first example [44] is certainly match reporting from paragraph 4 onwards. Paragraph 1 is the writers introduction, includes a primary quote and a writers opinion "he enjoys football again". No secondary information. Paragraph 2 likewise. although "he gained valuable experience by..." is not about this match, it is the primary opinion of the writer, it is not a collation or analysis of any sources. Paragraph 3 likewise and has quotations from the subject, which are neither primary nor independent.
  • Your second [45] is, as you say, very short. It also is evidently written from an interview response. I don't see how that can tell us anything about notability.
  • I'll have to come back to source 3 and the four that Das osmnezz wants to discuss above as I am out of time. Potentially an extended profile is relevant, and is not just match reporting, but I'll note cautions that (1) it contains interview material - which does not preclude it being good, but must be considered appropriately per WP:IV (2) independence needs to be considered. What is the occasion of the document? (3) we need multiple sources.

  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems like discussion is still ongoing here, Sirfurboy has at least indicated that they intend to return
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "a PhD thesis is a primary source" - that statement does not reflect community consensus; WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as they are often, in part, primary sources. (my emphasis) In other words, not always and if so, partially. Thus, case by case analysis is required, which is my point above about match reports. Unfortunately, this is again a demonstration of turning elements of our guidelines into binary black and white frameworks. It denies that our guidelines are designed to have flexibility and not be absolute. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How you can read what I said and think I am asserting a "binary black and white" framework, when I very specifically made the point to say the opposite, is beyond me. I literally made the point that the research is a primary source for the research/thesis being defended, but contains secondary information if the question asked of the source is different. But if you think that an eye witness match report is not prima facie a primary source, then you have some more reading to do. If someone watches a match and writes about the match, then what they are writing is an eye witness account. Now to the sources I said I'd come back to, I'll look at Das osmnezz's 4 first, and then at the third of yours that I ran out of time for.

  • First source: [46] This whole source is an interview. See WP:IV a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. In particular, all statements an interviewee makes about themself in an interview are primary, and cannot be used towards GNG. This includes the interviewer's summary of their response as you have quoted here. N
  • Second source: [47] This is a match report, a primary source. You argue that, nevertheless, there is secondary information, such as "He is finally enjoying football again." While it is true that this is not exactly a description of his performance on the field, what it is is an opinion of the person watching. That person is presenting the match report, and their opinion that he is enjoying football again, is the eyewitnesses opinion. This is still primary. It is the primary opinion of the reporter. It is not a synthesis or analysis of primary sources. It is their opinion based on what they saw. As a matter of historiography, this is all a primary source. It tells us about his performance in the match, it does not tell us about the notability of the subject. N
  • Third Source: [48] - Again an interview. Now you pick up the statement "Grandma is from Palermo..." etc. These are statements of fact that can be safely used in an article, but it is clear that this was not researched by the interviewer from some primary source. The interviewer has asked the interviewee a question, and he said, in the course of his answer, that his grandma came from Palermo etc. The statement is reported as a fact, but the information has come directly from the subject during the interview. It is primary. It is probably reliable enough, but it tells us nothing about notability, as per WP:IV and P&G N
  • Fourth Source: [49] - This is another interview and also cannot be used to establish notability. N
  • "This article" source (the one I said I'd come back to): [50] This one has a write up about an upcoming match. The first thing to note is that the quotations from Kubr are primary regarding Kubr. That is, if he talks about himself, the information is primary. Halfway down the article, however, we get a little biographical detail - his Belgian/Czech story. This information clearly comes from him, but the occasion is what is important. Why are we getting his profile? The answer is simply that he is a new signing, about to get a start. It is a news story, but I do not believe this demonstrates notability. News reporting is primary, and although the background goes beyond the main news interest, the information presented has clearly been obtained from the subject themself in the course of an interview for the news story. I will, however, mark it as a ? because others might wish to make a case for it. That case would need to take the occasioning of the article seriously. If one were inclined to accept it, however, this would still be the only source we have. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, so we are still short of GNG here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)

  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as I have said before this is black and white thinking since this logic means that a ton of mixed interview and secondary reporting profile pieces for magazines websites and newspapers cannot contribute to Wikipedia biographies' notability which is absurd. Also secondary reporting alongside an interview somehow dosnt count but if another source uses said interview as a source it does count? Make that make sense... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is source analysis. If information comes from the horse's mouth, it is not independent of the horse. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12 and 15 look in my view, while 13 is partially paywalled. Yeah, I understand that IR SIGCOV might be sometimes difficult to find... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Bulgaria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A quick Google News search [51] provides nothing. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 23:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unreferenced article about a seemingly unnotable location. Couldn't find reliable sources anywhere I looked. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Europe, and Bulgaria. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This location doesn't seem notable for the public, based on the independent media citations out there (or lack thereof). Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Not notable. A search basically establishes it exists with a small dam and there is a small hotel but no widespread coverage. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT - it's been unsourced for almost 16 years, is from a red-linked location that might not exist, and seems to be promoting some campsite, but it's so poorly written that I can't tell for certain. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Palitsi Dam Complex appears to be a hotel. Not finding much about the actual reservoir or village called Palitsi, though it seems there were plans to improve the road between Palitsi and Chakali funded by the Program for Rural Development. Could imagine an argument to keep based on either WP:GEOLAND or WP:NBUILDING but we would need reliable sources demonstrating that either of those criteria have been met. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No refs on the page for many years. Wikis in other languages do not offer much. Maybe there are relevant refs in local languages that show the GNG is met. JMWt (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bulgaria. JMWt (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick look in Bulgarian sources shows routine notability - it's one of the largest districts of Varna after all - but it's such a simple stub that what little is there could just be merged to Varna until someone wants to have a better crack at this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - AfD is not a venue for cleanup. A district with 84,000 inhabitants and an administrative apparatus of local governance, easily passes WP:NGEO. --Soman (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets the relevant WP:GEOLAND guideline. Needs better sourcing and could easily be merged if people prefer but outright deletion is neither necessary or approrpiate. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - in the Bulgarian language article, there are sources. I've been trout-slapped for not looking at other languages' articles before proposing deleting it. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Democracy (Czech Republic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD due to having incoming links. However, there is no evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor party, fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wow, what will they think of next! But they will probably last 7 weeks. Not notable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this party received a rounding error of votes in one election. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Světec train crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This article is about an event which appears not to have received any coverage beyond initial reporting on the day of, or after, the event four years ago. Although the content might be suitable for merging to the railway station page, there is no article there. C679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Czech Republic. C679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation is still under way.

https://di.gov.cz/mimoradne-udalosti/setrene-mimoradne-udalosti-a-zaverecne-zpravy/svetec-

https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne GoogolManiac (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are those two sources enough of a prove of continued coverage? There is not much else since there is no new information to cover. When the Rail Safety Inspection (Drážní inspekce) finishes their investigation and releases the report to public, there will be more sources talking about it. GoogolManiac (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:News article, no retrospective coverage. Notable events are ones that continue to get coverage in reliable sources even when there is no new information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is retrospective coverage: https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne This one is three years later (e.g. one year old), talking about how the accident showed system problems of the Czech railway network and how the investigation is still under way. The other source is an interim investigation report from the Rail Safety Inspection Office of the Czech Republic which came out one month ago. GoogolManiac (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking my delete vote because the HN source indicates some level of retrospective coverage. Are there any more sources like that (besides routine things like government reports)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is retrospective coverage.

https://di.gov.cz/mimoradne-udalosti/setrene-mimoradne-udalosti-a-zaverecne-zpravy/svetec-

https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne GoogolManiac (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Alliance of Independent Citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD due to being a political party. However, such organisations still have to meet WP:ORG, and there is no evidence that this one does. C679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fail organisation guidlines, not many signs of notability. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is not really any notable sources here. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, there needs to be more independent sources to bolster inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This Czech handball player (and casual MMA fighter?) does not currently meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages, routine match coverage and coverage on non-independent sites affiliated with Czech handball. A redirect from another editor was contested, so bringing this to AfD. As an alternative to deletion I propose to redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team until such time as he meets NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, and Czech Republic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team per nom. or else delete as lacking significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in the immediate days after the attack, no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED that establish WP:GNG. Open to an appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Egypt, Armenia, Czech Republic, and Germany. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17), where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17) per PARAKANYAA. I can't find any sustained coverage to indicate that this passes WP:NEVENT either. The suggested redirect seems appropriate. MCE89 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested redirect without improvement. If WP:NFOOTY still applied, would meet that requirement, but searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, just stat pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion on whether he's notable, but @Onel5969: may I suggest that if you come across an active non-notable footballer, you take it to AFD or PROD rather than BLAR as you previously did here? Footballers often move between lots of teams, so redirecting it to the one the subject is at presently could quickly become outdated and incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Das osmnezz sources. I couldn't see the paywalled ones, but the rest seem satisfactory to me. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The sources presented are primary sources, and he only played one match of professional level in Norway. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus twenty in the Czech second tier... FromCzech (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources below which (AGF) seemingly show notability. GiantSnowman 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @Svartner:, @GiantSnowman:, @Clariniie: bruh I found [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], among many more Czech and Norwegiajn sources in a few mins. Young player with ongoing career and many sources and 20+ fully pro games. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Bruh?" You know Q+A interviews are not acceptable for passing GNG yet you insist on providing them as sources at AFD. In your "few mins" search you've managed to link the same an.no article twice. (BTW what's behind the paywall? Can you tell us what is contains?) Dougal18 (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't get past the paywall either, but the headline reads: "Tough months for Lucas (20). I don't blame anyone." The second heading reads "Lucas Kubr had to have ankle surgery last fall. Now he's getting better and better every day." So it looks like a mix of news reporting of the slow return to form of a player with an injury, and interview with him ("I don't blame anyone" clearly being his words). The source is primary on one count or the other. I don't see how that can be counted towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy:, @Clariniie:, Idk how secondary coverage combined with interview would not count... using that black and white logic all newspaper/magazine interviews mixed with secondary coverage with anybody (like [58] or [59]) would not be counted towards anything... First source: ("Lucas Kubr is now showing it in Brno, where he found his first Czech contract at the age of 20 with second-league Zbrojovka. It came after a two-year stint in Norwegian Bodö/Glimt, for which he is grateful, but he did not want to be dragged off the substitutes' bench any longer... Both as a person and as a football player, Lucas Kubr grew up in the family of Prague native Martin Kubr in Belgium near Genk, in a region crazy about cycling... He didn't enjoy pedaling. But he was fascinated by football"), Second source: ("He is finally enjoying football again, and to a significant extent. Lucas Kubr desperately needed a lot of time on the pitch. After a season in which he played only a minimum of matches for the Norwegian team Bodo/Glimt, the left-back only welcomed the summer offer from Zbrojovka. He plays regularly for the Brno club, often in the starting lineup, and on Friday he even enjoyed his first goal in South Moravia against Slavia B. It was enough for a 1:1 draw. The 20-year-old player has mixed memories of his time at the elite Norwegian club. He gained valuable experience from an interesting destination, and at the beginning of last season it looked like he could make a significant impact. He started Bodo/Glimt's journey in the preliminary rounds of the European Conference League on the bench, from which he also watched the successful double match against Bohemians Prague, but that almost ended Kubra's anabasis in the first team. He only played in two cup matches, only collecting starts for the Norwegian club's reserve team. He welcomed his summer return to the Czech Republic, even though he is not currently experiencing many happy moments with Zbrojovka. The Brno team is still stuck in the relegation positions in the second league"), Third source just from the section without paywall: ("Grandma is from Palermo. Mom is Belgian, dad is from Prague, aunt is German. He was born near Genk, Belgium, and plays above the Arctic Circle in Norway... he rushed to Prague to visit his grandfather, who lives alone in a large house above Smíchov"), Fourth source: ("He lives an extraordinary life. With a Czech father, an Italian mother, a birthplace in Belgium, a current position in Norway beyond the Arctic Circle and a secret desire to become the new David Jurásek. Lucas Kubr (19), do you know him? The fast left-back from Bodo/Glimt was only recently discovered for domestic football by coach Radek Bejbl. The native of the Flemish city of Tongeren is an option for Jurásek's position in the newly formed U21 national team for Jan Suchopárek... Attention, a few days ago the youngster was close to being loaned out to the Czech league, according to iSport information specifically in České Budějovice. But the whole thing is said to have fallen through. It is still possible that the nice guy Lucas Kubr will arrive in the Czech Republic at the beginning of August with the Norwegian team for the rematch of the second preliminary round of the Conference League at Letná against Bohemians. Even if as a substitute"), and the fifth and sixth sources definitely have secondary coverage behind paywall. On top of this I can even find more sources and he will definiftely get more as his nascent pro and international career progresses. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The added sources are just match reporting and other primary reporting. For GNG we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources. We don't have those. I am a little troubled by a !vote that says "AGF seemingly show notability". At AfD we need to be discussing and reading the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we need multiple secondary SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Even just one provided is still too weak to establish notability. By the way, did you mean passing mention in match reports? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the comment. In answer to your question, it is passing anyway, but no - the problem is that even if you have a match report that has something that scrapes through SIGCOV by describing a good game that the player had, the account of the match is a primary source. Someone has watched the match and written down what they saw. The very definition of a primary source. Many people seem to assume that such accounts show notability (and such people have perhaps never !voted to delete an article in any AfD ever), but notability is shown when someone takes such accounts and writes a source that synthesises them to tell us something biographical of the player. For instance, if someone takes multiple accounts and describes how the player pioneered a new attack, or somesuch, then the synthesis and biographical account will be a secondary source demonstrating that the player is not just a player but a notable one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See what I wrote above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This report includes detailed analysis of his background and movement between Norway and the Czech Republic. This short article gives details on his personal background. This article is an extended profile. Easily satisfies GNG/BIO. Also there is simply no community consensus that match reports can per se be discounted as "primary"; it is simply not that binary. A match report can contain all sorts of information referencing past match histories, player interactions, differences between matches in a current season, coach/player styles, coach/player development etc. A match report which contains detailed analysis of a particular player's contribution could well count *towards* notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Match reports certainly are, prima facie the epitome of primary sources. They are an eyewitness report of a match. Your point, I think, is that even primary sources may contain information that may be considered secondary, depending on the question asked. An example from an unrelated area: a PhD thesis is a primary source, but a thesis studying a school might contain historical background of the school culled from other sources, and that background might be secondary. That does not make the thesis a secondary source. But when I said the sources were match reporting and other primary reporting, I did not assert a "binary" at all. I specifically said that what I read was primary reporting. So, let's look at these.

  • Your first example [60] is certainly match reporting from paragraph 4 onwards. Paragraph 1 is the writers introduction, includes a primary quote and a writers opinion "he enjoys football again". No secondary information. Paragraph 2 likewise. although "he gained valuable experience by..." is not about this match, it is the primary opinion of the writer, it is not a collation or analysis of any sources. Paragraph 3 likewise and has quotations from the subject, which are neither primary nor independent.
  • Your second [61] is, as you say, very short. It also is evidently written from an interview response. I don't see how that can tell us anything about notability.
  • I'll have to come back to source 3 and the four that Das osmnezz wants to discuss above as I am out of time. Potentially an extended profile is relevant, and is not just match reporting, but I'll note cautions that (1) it contains interview material - which does not preclude it being good, but must be considered appropriately per WP:IV (2) independence needs to be considered. What is the occasion of the document? (3) we need multiple sources.

  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems like discussion is still ongoing here, Sirfurboy has at least indicated that they intend to return
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "a PhD thesis is a primary source" - that statement does not reflect community consensus; WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as they are often, in part, primary sources. (my emphasis) In other words, not always and if so, partially. Thus, case by case analysis is required, which is my point above about match reports. Unfortunately, this is again a demonstration of turning elements of our guidelines into binary black and white frameworks. It denies that our guidelines are designed to have flexibility and not be absolute. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How you can read what I said and think I am asserting a "binary black and white" framework, when I very specifically made the point to say the opposite, is beyond me. I literally made the point that the research is a primary source for the research/thesis being defended, but contains secondary information if the question asked of the source is different. But if you think that an eye witness match report is not prima facie a primary source, then you have some more reading to do. If someone watches a match and writes about the match, then what they are writing is an eye witness account. Now to the sources I said I'd come back to, I'll look at Das osmnezz's 4 first, and then at the third of yours that I ran out of time for.

  • First source: [62] This whole source is an interview. See WP:IV a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. In particular, all statements an interviewee makes about themself in an interview are primary, and cannot be used towards GNG. This includes the interviewer's summary of their response as you have quoted here. N
  • Second source: [63] This is a match report, a primary source. You argue that, nevertheless, there is secondary information, such as "He is finally enjoying football again." While it is true that this is not exactly a description of his performance on the field, what it is is an opinion of the person watching. That person is presenting the match report, and their opinion that he is enjoying football again, is the eyewitnesses opinion. This is still primary. It is the primary opinion of the reporter. It is not a synthesis or analysis of primary sources. It is their opinion based on what they saw. As a matter of historiography, this is all a primary source. It tells us about his performance in the match, it does not tell us about the notability of the subject. N
  • Third Source: [64] - Again an interview. Now you pick up the statement "Grandma is from Palermo..." etc. These are statements of fact that can be safely used in an article, but it is clear that this was not researched by the interviewer from some primary source. The interviewer has asked the interviewee a question, and he said, in the course of his answer, that his grandma came from Palermo etc. The statement is reported as a fact, but the information has come directly from the subject during the interview. It is primary. It is probably reliable enough, but it tells us nothing about notability, as per WP:IV and P&G N
  • Fourth Source: [65] - This is another interview and also cannot be used to establish notability. N
  • "This article" source (the one I said I'd come back to): [66] This one has a write up about an upcoming match. The first thing to note is that the quotations from Kubr are primary regarding Kubr. That is, if he talks about himself, the information is primary. Halfway down the article, however, we get a little biographical detail - his Belgian/Czech story. This information clearly comes from him, but the occasion is what is important. Why are we getting his profile? The answer is simply that he is a new signing, about to get a start. It is a news story, but I do not believe this demonstrates notability. News reporting is primary, and although the background goes beyond the main news interest, the information presented has clearly been obtained from the subject themself in the course of an interview for the news story. I will, however, mark it as a ? because others might wish to make a case for it. That case would need to take the occasioning of the article seriously. If one were inclined to accept it, however, this would still be the only source we have. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, so we are still short of GNG here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)

  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as I have said before this is black and white thinking since this logic means that a ton of mixed interview and secondary reporting profile pieces for magazines websites and newspapers cannot contribute to Wikipedia biographies' notability which is absurd. Also secondary reporting alongside an interview somehow dosnt count but if another source uses said interview as a source it does count? Make that make sense... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is source analysis. If information comes from the horse's mouth, it is not independent of the horse. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12 and 15 look in my view, while 13 is partially paywalled. Yeah, I understand that IR SIGCOV might be sometimes difficult to find... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested draftification, so here we are. (Why not just let it stay in draft space?) It was draftified as only relying on database sources, and was readded with no valid sources. The only sources are a database and two instances of her name appearing in lists. These are nowhere near significant coverage, cf. WP:SPORTCRIT: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". I could find no other Danish sources in a WP:BEFORE (a language I can read and speak). I'm by no means opposed to it being draftified again, but it then has to go through the AFC process, I think. Geschichte (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the draft submission process was not respected. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I translated this article from Spanish before it was unilaterally moved to draftspace. I added more references and moved it back. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Danish language sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They too just mention her name among many Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the medals were won in team events. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy excerpt above. They need individual coverage about their person. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not specifically cover rowing making it somewhat confusing. Compared to other pages in Category:Danish female rowers this article is better sourced so what is the standard? Moondragon21 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy covers any and all sports. Regardless of sport, people need individual coverage about their person to have an article. Without that, it's not well sourced - in fact, having one reference with individual coverage about their person is the minimum standard. Geschichte (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only translated the article believing that a medal winning world champion in rowing was notable. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Denmark at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Shooting as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Denmark at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Shooting: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Henrik Harlev Petersen only competed in one world wheelchair curling championship in 2002 as alternate and finished in last place. CurlingEnthusiast (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Denmark. User:CurlingEnthusiast (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Wheelchair curling. — Maile (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M61 gas mask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this gas mask in reliable sources. There's a few one-off mentions of "Nokia made this one time." The rest are just sales listings or Youtube videos. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Products, and Finland. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They created so much, I found [67], [68], however they are snip-bits. It might be a useful search term. Is there no military tech created by Nokia article? Govvy (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Nokia products#Military communications and equipment. I didn't find any significant coverage. There was a news story in 2024 in Finnish newspapers about old gas mask filters: [69], [70]. M61 filters were mentioned but were not the focus of the story. --Mika1h (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now, given the attrocious unreferenced state of the current article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can't find WP:GNG-passing coverage. Doesn't seem to have played in any top league in France, made four appearances in Cypriot First Division so look maybe more into Cypriot sources if I missed something. Notable to say I made this article myself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of foreign football players in Cypriot First Division#France, where his name is mentioned, or Delete per nomination if no significant coverage is found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Don't think redirect is appropriate given he played for multiple teams. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Internationaux Féminins de la Vienne – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of coverage in sources and references/Lacking notability JustMakeTheAccount (JustMakeTheAccount) 22:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and France. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Extensively covered in e.g. [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. Iffy★Chat -- 05:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks to be easily covered just like all the other yearly editions of this event. The nominator has been on Wikipedia for a whole three weeks so perhaps this was an error? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article 74 of the Constitution of the Fifth French Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While all articles and amendments of the Constitution of the United States have Wikipedia articles, only Article 2 and Article 49 of the Constitution of France have such referenced coverage here because they deal with significant topics of its national symbols and separation of powers. In comparison, Article 74 is a niche topic that has not attracted significant commentary, hence why the page currently only cites the constitution itself. The topic of how France governs the overseas collectivity is briefly covered at Ordonnance#Overseas territories, though I do not think this page should be a redirect to that brief mention. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and France. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As a side discussion, note that the recently created pages for Articles 2 and 74 use a much longer title scheme than the older page for Article 49. These should be standardized. On one hand, the longer title differentiates from articles of the numerous older constitutions, but on the other, we have no Wikipedia pages on articles of those constitutions, so the disambiguation seems unnecessary. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does the article of the Constitution is or was controversial? Does it have an historical meaning? Doesn't seem to have a place in Wikipedia. It doesn't have WP:SIGCOV so it should be deleted. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. A page that merely restates a law, without any other context or secondary sources, is not an encyclopedia article. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law can't do it all: we are already overburdened with a backlog of several pressing issues, including an embarrassment of unsourced articles, assessing tens of thousands of stubs for their proper class, loss of project members due to burnout or death, and ongoing controversies such as Mark Zaid and Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recently recreated article previous deleted. I speedied it as G4 this morning, but the page creator User:SparklingBlueMoon says sources are improved so I undeleted it on request. I'm not satisfied this meets BLP or BAND per applied or found sources. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets BLP and WP:GNG. I am convinced that this person can be included in our encyclopedia. He appears in several reliable media where articles are entirely devoted to him, such as in La Voix du Nord, l'Observateur, and l'Avenir. He also appears in reliable media such as Canal FM and Muséanima. There are also interviews, but I do not count them as they cannot demonstrate notoriety by their nature as primary sources, but it is important to know that they exist and that they can be used in a non-abusive way and by being coupled with reliable sources to support the article. The sources span several years, which shows a long-term interest from the media, namely that not all the sources can be found online or in physical version in the article. There are enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article about him in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Still unclear that he meets WP:BLP or WP:MUSICIAN. The article reads as WP:PROMO with all kinds of details that are unnecessary for someone of his standing. As far as sourcing: The Canal FM source mentions a "Karl" but without last name and without any sort of in-depth coverage. That is not significant coverage that would count towards notability. The Muséanima site is inaccessible. Wikifamouspeople remains user-generated and unreliable. The BBC article doesn't mention him at all, and its inclusion is a bit of WP:SYNTH. As for l'Observateur and L'Avenir, I'm also not convinced that the articles are anything other than minor interest pieces. They don't really establish global notability. I have newspaper articles written about me and that interview me; and yet I am not notable enough for a wiki page. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:NBIO. I've only seen one RS in the reference section of the article. All the others are mentions, tangentially related to the subject, user generated pages or broken. Couldn't find any other RS. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, it is in accordance with WP:SIGCOV... I don't know how you checked the sources... I easily count more than 5 reliable sources, La Voix du Nord which has a Wikipedia article here, L'Avenir the same, l'Observateur is also a reliable newspaper which is also certified "Journalism Trust Initiative", Canal FM and Muséanima are also reliable sources. The majority of sources are entirely written about this person, we go far beyond simple mentions. For user-generated content, you must be referring to Wikifamouspeople? Despite its name, it is not actually a wiki where everyone can contribute, I can't see Leonardo Dicaprio or Kevin Hart going to this site to create their profile, it is an editorial team that writes profiles with the sources it finds on people who are at least notable. With a simple search I found other sources, obviously I didn't find and put all the sources that can be found on the internet or in physical form in the article. I've seen articles that are much less well sourced but have no problem, we don't understand anything anymore. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  La Voix du Nord is the only source I could consider. As Darth Stabro said, l'Observateur is a minor interest piece. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:MUSICIAN.

  Could you provide a link to an article in the L'Avenir site (www.lavenir.net)?

  The Canal FM source is only a mention. Muséanima is down and a very minor site, mostly of video clips. In the front page and in every page of Wikifamouspeople there's a link to create a free profile. Not RS at all.

  If you find other reliable sources with a simple search, please add them to the article or to a comment so the community can review them. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The AfD is not a vote but is based on arguments and explanations, so I'll take the time to explain why I think this person is eligible for inclusion on our Wikipedia:

If we look at all the criteria that apply to the person:

WP:BLP : Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the utmost care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Verifiability? → Yes, the text is based on reliable sources Written in a neutral tone? → Yes, the text is written in Wikipedia's recommended style and does transcribe what is stated in the sources Original research? → No, all the text is written based on sources; there is no unsourced information.

WP:BLP is respected.

Next, for WP:GNG : A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the topic.

"Significant coverage"→ Yes, this article has sources spanning several years, demonstrating that the person has generated media attention over several years. Furthermore, the page contains articles from reliable media outlets such as La Voix du Nord, L'Observateur, L'Avenir and others, entirely focused on the person and of sufficient length; it is not just a simple mention or a few short lines.

"Reliable" → Yes, several sources discussing this person are known to be reliable news sites, and some even have their own Wikipedia page here, such as La Voix du Nord and L'Avenir. L’Observateur which has existed for over 170 years and has the Journalism Trust certification is a reliable source, there are also Canal FM and Muséanima as reliable sources.

"Sources" → Yes, a large proportion of sources are secondary; they are sometimes combined with other types of sources to support the article.

"Independent of the subject" → Yes, the majority of sources are undoubtedly independent and written by journalists. If we take the case of Wikifamouspeople, it is not a user-generated source because it is not actually a real Wiki and only a few members of the editorial staff can write profiles.

WP:GNG is also respected.

For WP:MN

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theater groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. → Yes

So he also respects WP:MN.

According to a contributor, the article reads like promotional material, but all the content is sourced, there is no unpublished work, and there are no links attempting to redirect to this person's music or these networks, and if passages seem promotional then they can be removed or reformulated but that is not an argument for deletion. Too much information? Like any Wikipedia biography, I find it logical to talk about their childhood, their education, their musical style and influences, etc. If we look at Canal FM, we see that the person's name is Karl, he is 20 years old at the time of writing, and finally, we clearly recognize him in the photo that illustrates him on Canal FM, so we are indeed talking about the right person. Muséanima was accessible recently, it covered the subject in detail, it may be a temporary outage of the site, if it does not improve I will recover the archived version on Wayback Machine, the article is not lost. For Wikifamouspeople, I won't explain again why the content isn't actually user-generated. L'Observateur and L'Avenir write about the subject in detail and are reliable secondary sources. Also, I would like to remind you that as stated in WP:N it says "There is no fixed number of sources required", there is no minimum or maximum number of references for a subject to be included in Wikipedia, we are just asked that there are reliable sources and that it meets criteria, which is the case here. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With the sources we currently have and with the criteria of WP:BLP, WP:GNG and WP:MN respected, we could keep the article. If passages need to be removed, let's remove them. There are already quite a few reliable sources, but the contributors seem disturbed or undecided because they would like even more sources, in this case let's not delete the article but simply put the "Citation Needed" template at the top of the article, this template exists for that. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. Very little information in article besides that she owned a castle and married someone else who may be notable.ash (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One source [76] says that she founded the charterhouse of Poletins-en-Bresse (which this article states that she was buried at). It seems likely that a woman who bought a castle and founded a charterhouse in the 13th century would have something written about her. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Biographies in books from the 1600s and 1700s [77], [78], showing notability several hundred years after hear death. Many hits in the BNF Gallica as well [79] Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Humbert V de Beaujeu. The sources above just repeat the same few facts about her genealogy and dowry (and founding a monastery), which are certainly worth including in her husband's article, however. Ingratis (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC) see below[reply]
• Keep I have added sources and info, and I believe that she meets WP:BASIC at least. As Oaktree b has noted, she is included in histories published many centuries after her death. There is information that she was buried in the choir of the church of the Charterhouse of Poletins, which has been described as "one of the most sacred parts of the church and a very prestigious place for burials" [80]. If we had an article about the Charterhouse of Poleteins, that might be a suitable target for a merge or redirect, but I do not think it would be suitable to merge to her husband's article. He was busy going on crusades and visiting Constantinople, and being governor of Languedoc), whereas she was active in the Ain département. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she had her own seal [81]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based on additions by Rebecca Green which show that she M de B did more than being genealogical. Ingratis (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP: HEY. Another rescue by RebeccaGreen. Bearian (talk)

St. Dalfour France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines.​ Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Xrimonciam: What WP:BEFORE did you conduct prior to nomination? i know you're a dog 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article has enough independent, reliable sources. A quick web search shows many more. WP:N is covered. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

After defusing a couple WP:REFBOMBs, the notability of this young footballer didn't seem as clear. After a search, the most I found from third-party sources was this routine contract extension announcement and trivial mentions like 1. There is also a bit here, although it consists of quotes from the club's training center director. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep :

  • WP:FOOTYN :
  • Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure.
  • Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.
  • Swierot played for Lyon, winning the French Division 1 Championship in 2024, and with Reims. + UEFA Women's Under-17 Championship (which she won), UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship.

  https://www.fff.fr/equipe-nationale/joueur/10490-swierot-julie/fiche.html

  Third party sources

  https://www.lunion.fr/id697342/article/2025-03-13/le-stade-de-reims-pourra-cette-fois-faire-jouer-julie-swierot-face-lolympique

  https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2024/08/02/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-une-saison-et-est-pretee-a-reims

  https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2023/08/01/le-futur-de-l-ol-feminin-c-est-elles

  https://africafootunited.com/transfert-f-lequipe-feminine-du-stade-de-reims-signe-marion-haelewyn-et-trois-autres-joueuses/

  https://www.lyonfoot.com/article/6634/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-un-an-et-file-en-pret-a-reims

  https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/mercato-swierot-prolongee-par-lol-feminin-puis-pretee-a-reims,336445.html

  https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/ol-academie-dix-jeunes-joueuses-ont-obtenu-leur-baccalaureat,334629.html

  And I wonder how people feel about a user specifically targeting another user after a disagreement. Harassment, stalking. ProudWatermelon (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all brief mentions or transfer reports, none of these are really helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Might meet notability requirements with the pro starts, but we need sourcing. Simply mentioning the person in a brief article less than a paragraph long isn't enough. I don't see sourcing we can use what's in the article is primary. The sources in the comment above are brief mentions or articles less than a paragraph long. It's likely TOOSOON for this young person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning Govvy and BeanieFan11. Barr Theo (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barr Theo. I see you are new to AfDs, and I'm sure this ping was done in good faith. Please note that you need to be very careful about pinging editors to a discussion. If it appears this is done to influence one side or another, it would be considered vote stacking. The active AfD participants will usually find their way to discussions they are interested in. If you need specific expertise, it is a good idea to explain why you are summoning that editor. E.g. because they speak a language used in the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barr Theo: You're free to strikethrough your own comment if you'd like, but please don't delete someone else's. I've restored Sirfurboy's comment. JTtheOG (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "yes, there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively - but there is a longstanding convention to allow young players/those with ongoing careers more leeway, and I think the same should be allowed here. He is 19, and more sources will be written in due course. If they are not or he never plays again etc. then delete at that point." Barr Theo (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You haven't even got this person's gender right... GiantSnowman 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman: It's funny you say that, because I copied and pasted this comment from you (hence why I placed it under "quotations")... I found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caden Tolentino from August 2021... I was trying to talk the way you guys do... Barr Theo (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You should not be blindly copying & pasting other editor's comments from unrelated AFDs, especially not ones that came before NFOOTBALL was abolished. GiantSnowman 00:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  or is it a double standard ProudWatermelon (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I waited this long because I was hoping some sources would come to light. Women are under-represented in Wikipedia articles. But articles needs sources and this one does not have the requisite multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Bar Theo, or anyone else, can we find a suitable redirect target as an ATD? If not, I will be reluctantly !voting delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Ninh Bình (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fundamentally based on 19th-century French colonial primary sources with no verification from independent or Vietnamese historical accounts. A thorough search finds no mention of the “Capture of Ninh Binh” in Vietnamese historiography or modern reliable sources. The article therefore relies entirely on colonial-era narratives, which are highly prone to bias, exaggeration, and imperialist framing, one look at the article and you’ll understand. Per WP:V, WP:HISTRS, and WP:NPOV historical topics must be supported by reputable, secondary sources and not solely colonial accounts. Without independent corroboration, this article promotes a one-sided, questionable version of history that does not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or notability standards. Therefore, deletion is the appropriate course. More detailed historical issues are explained further on the article’s Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsidersInsight (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Vietnam, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fully sourced. No issue with French colonial sources. Colonial-era narratives are reliable sources. The sources used are not primary, and independent corroboration is not required for WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It relies almost entirely on French colonial-era sources from the 1870s–1880s (Romanet du Caillaud, Charton, d’Estampes, Société académique indochinoise). Only two modern sources (Phạm 1985 and Short 2014) are cited, and neither independently corroborates the extraordinary claim (7 men capturing 1,700 soldiers). Per WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, such extraordinary historical claims require strong independent confirmation, which is missing here. Article currently gives a misleading sense of undisputed fact. OutsidersInsight (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BAND, was unable to find any form of significant for inclusion. They also seem to have been nominated and deleted previously, and judging from the nomination that time, there doesnt seem to much of an improvement this time around. No charting album, not on a notable label, no inclusion in any big publication. In fact most of their 'press' seems to just come from underground metal online tabloids like Metal Injection and MetalSucks, like many others of this bands size. Searching their name just brings up the usual for underground metal acts such as LastFM or Sputnikmusic mostly. Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is plenty of coverage. Not everything, especially for bands from smaller countries will be instantly on the front of major news outlets, which does not discredit their notability. The majority of the coverage on them has been published since the first deletion as well. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so you edited the page since the delete nomination with this edit with the summary "Maybe actually look past page 1 of Google search results". What am I missing here? Obscure webzines/blogs in Italian and Danish? That's the big comeback with verifiable sources? User-created blogs and webzines are generally not reliable sources. You claim "There is plenty of coverage. Not everything, especially for bands from smaller countries will be instantly on the front of major news outlets, which does not discredit their notability", which is fine when it comes to small metal bands due to their appearances on verifiable publications like Revolver or Kerrang etc. yet I still dont see any noteworthy sources like those. All that's mostly used on the article are metal webzines, which anyone can create and maintain - and are generally disallowed per wp:USERG — Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 06:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Obviously self-published self-biographical promotional. This seriously detracts from the quality of Wikipedia. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Germany, and Trinidad and Tobago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom the article seems to be hyping her up rather then being informative the sources arent very good either Scooby453w (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. No RS. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of signifance. BLP with what looks like zero WP:SECONDARY sources. Seems to be a man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not finding anything of substance on this person, BTW, she's a woman not a man according to the article. I agree it's an article on a run of the mill journalist/political scientist just doing her job. Fails WP:JOURNALIST WP:NSCIENTIST and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable company. Covered mostly by WP:TRADES. The best article about the company is this but it is more about Alster fountain than the company. WP:SPAs editing history is also problematic. Overall, clearly fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the references. --Trimax503 (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:ATA. It would be better if you point out the references (that meet WP:CORPDEPTH standard) and why you are just interested in AfDs as a newbie? Gheus (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freiburg-Madison-Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable organisation. No reliable sources. Promotional. See WP:NOT. Fails WP:NORG. Cabrils (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Germany, and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Can this be merged into one if the cities' article under "Twin cities" or the like? Bearian (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does every twinning agreement between every pair of cities in the world need a separate article? It should surely be enough to mention the twins in the articles on the cities concerned. Athel cb (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ende Gelände 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not special enough to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Environment, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested prod without improvement. Currently sourcing does not show they pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up with enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show they meet GNG. And they do not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Keep - has a German-speaker done WP:BEFORE? Most/all sources will be in German. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at the history of this article, it appears to be a translation of the poorly sourced German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_Sikora. No sources there to help sustain the biographical information and claims made in the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have revisited this article several times. I've made some edits, but am unable to find RS to show notability. Sikora designed an observation tower and a footbridge. The sourcing for this information is miriquidimedia.de (Miriquidi Media), which looks to be a site about Sikora that promotes his books, project and tours. I don't think it can be considered an independent source. The citation for the biographical information is a dead link. The listing for books have citations that don't link anywhere, just hyperlink for ISBN and hyperlink to the Wikipedia pages of the German region the book covers. I have not found anything on the internet to show notability. The fact that there might be something somewhere in German needs to survive WP:BURDEN --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is primarily about his parents and grandfather and very little about Hubertus himself beyond genealogical information. I see no reason for notability independent of his ancestry. WP:NOTINHERITED WP:NOTGENEOLOGY D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ernst Leopold Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (his father). The contents of this entire article can be transferred to and summed up in the "Marriage and family" section of the other article I mentioned. Vida0007 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per User:Vida0007. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.The present prospective petitioner to be restored as Duke of Albany should have his own article and Wikipedia's genealogical content is not a drawback in any sense and there is no reason to thin it just because it's not marked for extension.72.80.84.163 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a form WP:CRYSTALBALL argument you are making. The Duke of Albany title was ended in the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 a whole 44 years before Hubertus was born. You seem to think there's some inherit notability in being "in line" for a title that fundamentally no longer exists and your basis is that it could potentially be restored but there's no sources to support that. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Royal Family article in Debrett's Peerage includes the deprived titles as "suspended" and tracks the heirs and we should do likewise...the law makes provision for heirs to petition to be restored. 72.80.84.163 (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Beeing a potential petitoner does not bring relevance. Beeing a petitoner would change that, but this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Keeping track of who reliabable sources think could be a potential petioner is already covered in the article Duke of Albany, which is the appropriate place. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The terms of the Act make clear who the one person at any time entitled to petition is but the deletion of this article might be seen as an excuse to omit mention of it from the Duke of Albany article.72.80.84.163 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in the immediate days after the attack, no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED that establish WP:GNG. Open to an appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Egypt, Armenia, Czech Republic, and Germany. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17), where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17) per PARAKANYAA. I can't find any sustained coverage to indicate that this passes WP:NEVENT either. The suggested redirect seems appropriate. MCE89 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article fails notabillity guidelines for musicians, and also violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It does not cite any sources and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support agree with reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I find it hard to believe he's not notable... Indexed in SIX national libraries, the VIAF. Gnewspapers brings up many hits, Gbooks has hits on his name from the 1930s to the present. The VIAF link has two biographical links in German. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Album review here [82] Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the German wikipedia article has some book references that look reliable here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it is very likely that he is notable, but it is not going to be easy to find reviews of his concert performances or recordings (although Oaktree b has already found one on jstor). Some do come up on a Google Books search, eg Fanfare (14/1-2:263) and The Gramophone (52/613-618:536), but they have only snippet views, so can't be used as sources. Finding hard copies from that era would probably need access to a very large library. Apart from reviews, Discogs shows multiple albums released by the Musical Heritage Society and by a German label called Da Camera Magna. I realise that Discogs is not reliable, but it gives album names and label numbers which can be searched for elsewhere - and does suggest that he meets WP:MUSICBIO#5. I have added some sources to the article, and removed the unsourced tag. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more than "comments" here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reviewing comments and additional links presented here suggests that nom. criteria for deletion is not met. Can be tagged for additional sources and enhanced by translating from the German article. Komodo (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This YouTube channel does not meet the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the cited sources, it is clear that there is a lack of significant, independent, and reliable coverage necessary to establish notability. The first two sources are interviews with the subject, which are inherently not independent and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The third source, published by the University of Münster (uni-muenster), also fails the independence test, as the host of the YouTube channel appears to be an alumna of the same university. The fifth source cited in the article does not mention the YouTube channel at all. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Germany. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed a broken link which was the reason why the fifth source was being claimed as irrelevant. In addition, the idea that writing about an alumna is a conflict of interest seems spurious to me. This seems like the same idea as arguing that academic journals are default biased by focusing on a specific topic; the topic here is just "alumni/ae of the University of Münster" instead of something like "education". Mcavoybickford (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you fixing the broken link. That said, the source is just a directory/listicle that briefly mentions Easy German among other channels. It is only a few lines with no real depth and would not count as significant coverage by Wikipedia standards for establishing the subject's notability.

And yes, the uni-muenster article does not seem to be independent. It is full of quotes from the subject and there's even a disclaimer at the top stating This text is taken from the alumni|sponsor magazine of the university newspaper 'wissen|leben,' summer semester 2022 issue. That magazine features stories submitted by their own alumni. Anyone who attended the university can send in their story to be featured.

Wikipedia expects significant coverage to be both substantial and independent of the subject, which isn't the case here. Junbeesh (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: A thesis [83] and some discussion in a journal [84], with the other sources in the article we should be able to build a basic/stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Catalan-language paper here [85]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These alone do not establish notability, though they may contribute toward it. The primary requirement is that the subject must have received sufficient, significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. Junbeesh (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I think the journal article and Catalan paper are two significant independent reliable sources, as is The Local [86]. With the other borderline sources I think there's just about enough to push this into notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable swimmer. No sources beyond profiles from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No evidence of WP:BEFORE. A search brings up SIGCOV such as this, paywalled stories that are almost certainly SIGCOV such as this, and it is very, very likely that a world championship swimming medalist in the offline era will have further coverage in German newspaper archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The links posted above basically link to the same story with the same title ("Schwimmer Christian Geßner war für ein paar Stunden Republik-Flüchtling", or in machine translation "Swimmer Christian Geßner [Gessner] was a refugee from the Republic for a few hours") which is about their missing a flight and being thought to have defected from the East Germany. The piece is one of those narrative-with-comments-from-the-subject stories where the author clear spoke to the journalist writing the story. If that were all there was I'd lean weak-delete, but I see there's also a Munziger bio that appears to be referencing a news article. The Spiegel piece referred to in the Munziger bio is a one-paragraph mention of Gessner. Neues Deutschland had an interview with Gessner, but given that this was the party mouthpiece it is not exactly a reliable source. None of these is the kind of solid SIGCOV that I'd like to see for an article but there does at least seem to be biographical detail in them beyond the usual stats. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Swimming at the 1991 European Aquatics Championships#200 m individual medley where his name is mentioned and he won the highest, silver medal. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Sings Modern Talking: Let's Talk About Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of this album passing WP:NALBUM, charting, or receiving critical responses. A copy of this mainspace version is at the draftspace, so this looks more like a copy-and-paste move. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• draftify for now. Given that the previous release did chart at number 5 in Germany, this one might as well chart, but we don't know. Alternatively these 6 past and future releases could just have one article under the title "Magic". Bedivere (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that it's reached number 5 in the German charts I think it's fine to keep Bedivere (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bedivere Citation, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.offiziellecharts.de/charts/album Bedivere (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Redirect with history to Thomas Anders, but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jax 0677 It now passes WP:NALBUM as it charted at #5 in the German charts. Bedivere (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hessische Geschichten (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)

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

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

Has not had any references added for at least eight years. References section is empty, with only three external links. Carlinal (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. As noted in the nom, it has been unsourced for years. A BEFORE search only reveals Wikipedia mirrors, user-submitted content and primary sources either from the foundation itself, or from other organizations or artists that the foundation has donated to. They have a noble mission, but this is not the same as being in itself notable, and charitable foundations do not have inherent notability. If fully independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage can be found, I would consider changing my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 60 minutes in Albania's highest league. Nothing significant about the cited coverage, this is also just a WP:PASSING mention, this is WP:ROUTINE. Geschichte (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Albania, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. The content is minimal and promotional in nature, offering little encyclopedic value. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Michalis Rokas meets Wikipedia’s WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL criteria. He is a senior career diplomat within the European External Action Service, having held multiple head-of-mission roles representing the EU in Malaysia, New Zealand (as Chargé d’Affaires), and currently in North Macedonia. His appointments were publicly announced by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, indicating high-level political relevance. He has been regularly cited in independent and reliable media sources across Europe and Asia (e.g. Bernama, Free Malaysia Today, MIA, European Newsroom), and his role has direct bearing on EU enlargement and trade negotiations (e.g. EU–Malaysia FTA). Furthermore, the article is well-sourced with references from EEAS and major news outlets. The subject is notable as a top-ranking EU official shaping external relations. InfoWanderer (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial, not deepening, nothing notable. Α diplomat just doing his job. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nomination and your assessment were based on a very early draft of the article, created just hours before substantial improvements were made. Since then, the article has been significantly expanded with independent, reliable sources and verifiable content. I would appreciate it if you could revisit the current version before drawing a final conclusion.InfoWanderer (talk) InfoWanderer (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG - clearly falls into WP:LUGSTUBS. Réunion! 03:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• That Olympedia gives him a decent-size bio strongly indicates that he was notable. What we need to do is search Greek sources. Has that been done? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Considering that Olympedia is owned by the IOC, that isn't a independent source. Let'srun (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The content was written before IOC ownership and was previously hosted by Sports Reference; only after the rename to Olympedia did the IOC buy it (i.e. its independent). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see a date on the bio. How are you sure it was written before IOC ownership? Let'srun (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd have to try to look through Wayback Machine archives for this particular one, but based on other ones I've checked in the past, the biographies were originally on SR, then imported to Olympedia when SR's Olympics site split. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Die Olympischen Kunstwettbewerbe 1912-1948 (The Olympic Art Competitions 1912-1948) covers the olympic artwork, but with little beyond. [87] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War [88], although these are not biographical of him. That's all I found so far. That is not a GNG pass yet, but may indicate there is more to be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is not a typical Lugstub at all. Has anyone searched in Wikilibrary sources? Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of people with the name Takis Sakellariou. There's also no Greek article on him, unfortunately, so it's not like we can just expand it with the corresponding article in Greek. If someone native in the language looked, maybe we'd get a more definitive answer if there's any articles that do pass GNG on him. Réunion! 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will certainly be namesakes, but what is the basis for saying there are a lot of them? Sakellariou is not unusual but neither is it a particularly common Greek surname, and the same could be said for the forename, Takis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, this one [89] is clearly more notable and accounts for most of what I am turning up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Greek there is an extensive reference to Sakelariou here which comes from a book on the subject - I think it's a reliable source. Apart from that, however, I have not found anything else worthwhile. Delete Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics or consider Grigoris Lambrakis, although mention at the page would be required. I have searched but unable to find any SIGCOV secondary sources for this subject. There is a more notable namesake in entertainment (actor and producer) and most sources refer to that one. However the sources I found above are confirmed to be this page subject. The problem is that these are just not enough. The history of the Olympic art competitions confirms his entry, but doesn't have anything to tell us about the man. Likewise Gkotzaridis (2016), that is, A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War, which I have now obtained a library copy of, only actually has three mentions of the page subject, the other mentions of Sakellariou in the work referring to one of five others with that surname: Alexandros, Aristeidis, Epameinondas, Petros and Vassileos. The most substantial of the references to the page subject reads: As for Takis Sakellariou, he was properly bedazzled and stirred - like so many others back at home - by the spectacle of Germans rooting for Greek athletes in Greek and some even succeeding in intoning the first verses of the Greek national anthem! and this is referenced to one of his works:

- Takis Sakellariou, "The Foustanela-dressed of the Gymnastics Academy and the Greek Champions: Mantikas, Syllas and Papadimas," Athlitismos, August 10, 1936.

That source, of course, is primary. The book also confirms his involvement in training, with As soon as he met Grigorios, the coach, Takis Sakellariou, sensed at once that he had in front of him a rare instance of an athlete, with remarkable jumping capabilities. He started to train him, believing firmly that he would grow into a wonderful jumper. The other mention also briefly mentions training. And that is it. We have no secondary sources covering the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the one good source below, striking my redirect for now, as focus on the subject as a sports science pioneer may be more fruitful than as an Olympian. At the very least we should allow time for further searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting my redirect !vote back. The source below is excerpted from a local history book published by the Piraeus association. The website is similarly supported by the association. The claims about him being a pioneer are, it seems, overhyped, as there is no other evidence of this. He is of local interest, but it is a single source by an association promoting Piraeus. This is not enough for GNG and nothing else is coming to light. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. @Svartner and Sirfurboy: A search brought up that he literally had an in-depth story written on him this year, see this, which is 1,600 words on him by some Greek historical writer, titled "the pioneer of scientific gymnastics". In addition to it being SIGCOV, the fact that he still gets in-depth coverage today and that recent Greek writers were able to find so much on him strongly indicates that there would be further, offline coverage, as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree this one meets SIGCOV in a secondary source, and is an excerpt from a book that appears to be reliable, and independent. Who are the Thematic Office of Culture? Almost certainly this gives us one good source. We need multiple to meet GNG, so one more will do it (given that we have the brief mentions too). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The website you found deals exclusively with Piraeus issues - it records the local history of the city. There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. – How do you know? Have you checked old Greek archives? What about 1930s newspapers? Not everything is on the internet... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are sources that are inaccessible to us - it is as if they do not exist since they cannot be documented. The newspapers of the time are considered primary sources since they cannot prove notability. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Inaccessible to you does not equate to non-existent. If you have not checked any Greek archives, then you have no right to claim that they do not exist. Neither are all newspaper sources primary and unusable like you claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is essentially a Russell's teapot argument. It is for the people asserting that these things exist to demonstrate that they do. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its also utterly ridiculous to claim a clearly prominent figure who still gets covered by historians today has "no further coverage" when no one has looked where the coverage is most likely to be! The chances that he would not have been covered significantly in his day is very, very, very slim given that he's still being covered today. No one has checked any Greek archives. People get covered most when they are active; that he gets covered significantly decades after his death is a very strong indication that there was significant coverage of him in the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. We have one source with clear sigcov and some other sources that mention him. For a topic so inaccessible, this is enough to convince me that WP:NEXIST applies. Toadspike [Talk] 10:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I have struck my !vote after seeing FOARP point out below that the one source with sigcov seems to be a blog created with the "sole purpose" of promoting Piraeus. The author's other credentials are not, in my opinion, enough to qualify him as so much of a subject-matter expert that it can overcome the obvious declared bias. Toadspike [Talk] 21:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The website is hosting content from a book the author wrote on Pireaus history. Plenty of reliable writers/media outlets focus on specific regions. What sort of credentials are you looking for for a subject-matter expert? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete or redirect - Olympedia is an unreliable source, as we saw with the Frank English AFD (wrong death-date, wrong name) and others. Moreover the operators corrected Olympedia directly in response to our Frank English AFD so it appears that they are using Wiki as a source. This unreliability is part and parcel of the other reason that Olympedia does not indicate notability: it has wide-sweeping inclusion criteria. A lot of their data appears to come from family members, so it is not independent even ignoring the fact that it is owned by the IOC.

I was tempted to vote keep based on the Pireorama, but looking at the about page it appears to just be a blog set up to promote Pireus, and as such is a self-published source. The article is an excerpt from what appears to be a self-published book (Milesis is a prominent member of the Pireus Association). The article also references an encyclopaedia listing for Sakellariou but crucially it also tells you that Sakellariou authored that encyclopaedia - as such, that encyclopaedia is not an independent source.

It just doesn't look like there's any there there, which is the problem with so many of these LUGSTUB articles. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you consider Pireorama a self-published source, the author Stefanos Milesis (Στέφανος Μίλεσης) is clearly a subject-matter expert, given that he's a historian, newspaper columnist, lecturer, television host and the author of nearly two dozen history books, many of which are non-self-published. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP - Every site has some errors. It happens. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics : Subject lacks the required WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I too share the concerns with using Olympedia and I can't find anything better to support notability here. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what's wrong with Milesis's article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a blog post, an excerpt from a book published by the association of which Milesis is a member, about that association (and so self-published). FOARP (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    But Sakellariou wasn't a member of that organization, was he? Self-published sources can still be reliable if the author is a subject matter expert. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It says he's a member on his Linkedin profile: ("He is a member of the National Society of Greek Writers, the Piraeus Association and the Maritime Museum of Greece."). FOARP (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean Sakellariou. If Sakellariou has no connection to the Piraeus Association, then someone in the Piraeus Association who is a subject matter expert writing SIGCOV about Sakellariou is SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The passage in the book certainly is SIGCOV. But that is not enough. To count towards GNG, you need significant coverage (SIGCOV) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. A self published source is not a reliable source. But, in any case, you can argue the toss on this one - we still don't have multiple sources. And sources like this are exactly why we need multiple sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. Note that per WP:SPORTCRIT, having one piece of SIGCOV indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Also note that, per WP:NSPORT, The sports-specific notability guidelines are ... meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. One piece of SIGCOV is sufficient to satisfy NSPORT, and thus it should be acceptable to allow for more time instead of demanding "GNG now!" He's got SIGCOV, a second piece of arguably borderline coverage (Olympedia), and thus it should be acceptable to keep this on that basis for now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah, it's not. SPORTCRIT starts off (emphasis mine) A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The bit you quote specifically says one source does not indicate notability but is a minimum requirement for any article that meets the following shortcut criteria for a presumption of notability. And no one has argued that this article meets any of those. But again, SPORTCRIT is the same as GNG here. Multiple sources are required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no other way to interpret that having SIGCOV, like here, indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article, and meeting it is meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... [and] Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not how it works Beannie: Self-published works are self-published works regardless of what they are writing about. The Pireus association is obviously interested in promoting their city. WP:SPS also warns against using self-published works, particularly for biographies ("if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". WP:SPS also requires the "expert" to have expertise "in the relevant field", which is questionable here - as far as I can see Milesis's background is in business administration and his career is broadcasting, he is at best an amateur historian. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Per above, A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. You think its "questionable"? He's a newspaper columnist, a television/radio host discussing the area history, a lecturer on the area history, and has written numerous published history books on area history. He's clearly acceptable for area history like this. if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources – yeah, the thing is that no one has looked in any of the archives where that coverage would be. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Which sound exactly like millions of other amateur historians. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you can say that, but all that matters is that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Being published in newspapers, on radio / television shows and having books published by independent houses meets that, whether you think its like "millions of others" or not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to what Sirfurboy has ably discussed above, I’d throw in self-published sources being a poor indicator of notability even accepting for the sake of argument the author being an expert of some kind. “Self published by an expert” might be reliable because the person writing about it knows the subject area, but the fact that they couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them and had to do it themselves makes notability dubious. FOARP (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-published doesn't automatically mean that the author couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them... If written by an expert, the piece is reliable per our policy on self-published sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Reliable" does not automatically mean "notable". People talking about themselves is an example of a source that is reliable, but does not show that the subject is notable. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Reliable" + "independent" + "in-depth" = SIGCOV. This is not a subject talking about themselves. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No WP:SIGCOV just means significant coverage. That is, it is in-depth, addressing the subject. For a subject to be notable, it must meet the general notability guidelines (GNG), for which there must be multiple sources with SIGCOV, where each must be reliable, and independent. And also these must be secondary sources. Furthermore, the article must not be excluded under what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). See WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And? Pireaus is both reliable, independent, and in-depth. NOT has no application here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. This WP:SPS has been discussed above against that standard. We do not agree that it is reliable. Even if it were, we still need multiple sources. We especially need multiple sources if the only source we have is a local self published source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh, I've demonstrated that the source is clearly a subject-matter expert, which means that even if SPS, it is reliable. Olympedia can be counted as the second source; it is over 100 words on him. I contacted Millesis and he said that Sakellariou was covered numerous times in his day, so I've asked if he could share the extent of some of the sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Request as this is soon due for closure, could we get a relist? (see above comment) Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See the comment directly above the request. Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Has someone looked into Greek newspapers, as newspapers can be good quality reliable secondary sources? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at a number through archive.org, yes. The expectation, of course, is that news reporting will usually be primary, not secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If a newspaper article is reporting about a current event it's a primary source, in most other cases it's a secondary article. If we are able to find a newspaper article writing about the works of Sakellariou, it's likely to be a secondary source article. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Archive.org is not the best place to search for offline-newspaper articles. Is there an online website where you can search into old Greek newspapers? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What Greek newspapers did you look in? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I managed to find this piece of significant coverage on him from 1958 following his death that's more or less 300 words. [90] Additionally, we now know when and why he passed away, the when being on the 17th of September 1958 (which can also be confirmed here) and the why being from a cerebral haemorrhage following a stroke. Using Google Translate, he is described as a "teacher", he was the deputy director of the "Maternal Education" and a sports editor (including for Vradyni for 10 years) who wrote "many articles in newspapers and magazines". He also "dealt with studies on sports in antiquity and published a dozen of notable books that were translated into foreign languages". In addition, he was also a professor at the "Gymnastics Academy" and a swimming coach for the national team and for Panathinaikos A.O. who "highlighted a number of excellent swimmers." Whilst the other pieces of coverage that I've found didn't contain significant coverage of him, they could help in expanding the article. This piece talks about the establishment of prizes in his honour; this piece describes him (using Google Translate) as a "great teacher"; and even though this doesn't contribute to notability, I also managed to find an article written by him. [91] I think based on this, we can safely assume that there's more coverage on him in offline sources than what is currently available to us. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chiliopodarousa (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)

• Flag of Serbia (Habsburg) (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

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

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

Entirely unsourced. If references could be found to make any of this notable, it could be included in Garristown. My general and News Google searches don't seem to assist. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It is entirely unclear what the intended subject is here. The original author claims (without references) that "Springhill is a tiny community, with around six tightly grouped houses". If that is an accurate description of the intended subject, then it is unlikely to meet WP:NPLACE. None of the links in the article support the text (many do not even mention a place called Springhill) and therefore cannot be used to support a claim to notability. Or, frankly, even help figure-out what that actual subject is or was intended to be. The only place that I can find (using OR and Google Maps) to even make a GUESS as to what the intended subject is this this area of Grallagh townland in Grallagh civil parish. Which is marked on Google Maps as "Springhill". And which is "nearby Grallagh graveyard" (as given in the body) and also near the former site of "Wyanstown House" (also mentioned in the body). And appears to have some kind of equestrian facility (as mentioned in the body). HOWEVER, we should NOT HAVE TO RELY on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to guess/establish what the author was possibly referring to. And, even if that was the intended subject, the "official" name of this area (townland/civil parish/etc) appears to be Grallagh. Not "Springhill". (FYI. I note that there is a "Springhill" townland, of approximately 63 acres, in the civil parish of Cloghran (Coolock). However, this appears to be an entirely different subject to the one intended by the author. Being at least 25km away in a completely different part of the county. And, while we could perhaps re-scope this title to cover that subject I note that (a) the small townland contains just one home and some fields and doesn't meet NGEO, and (b) if we wanted to do this then WP:STARTOVER would likely apply). In short: I agree with the nom. There are no sources to establish notability. Or even to establish what the intended topic is/was. The EN Wikipedia project is not improved (and is likely disadvantaged) by having such an article. Guliolopez (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

it fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Oia-pop (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false and baseless nomination that should be withdrawn. The article clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, and I have since added multiple new, verifiable, and independent sources to further strengthen its reliability and alignment with WP:GNG

You are a new or relatively inactive account that appears to be nominating articles without sufficient understanding of notability criteria or proper engagement with the article’s actual content and sourcing. Wikipedia encourages constructive editing and improvement — not careless deletion nominations.

Per WP:BEFORE and WP:NOT, deletion should never be the first step when an article is clearly improvable and well-sourced, as is the case here. I strongly urge administrators and editors to dismiss this nomination and focus instead on collaborative improvements where needed. Sterling44 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for spamming. MER-C 16:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Niall J. English: Fails WP:NCORP. The Irish Times source is okay but that's only one source. I can't find any better sources. Merging with the founder's article is a good WP:ATD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

• Changing to Delete after the creator was blocked for UPE. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - likely paid-for sockpuppet spam. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aniflower and [92]. Creator blocked. MER-C 17:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G5). It is elegible for G5 and would have been deleted as such if it was not because of this AFD. MarioGom (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum of Irish Postgraduate Medical Training Bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable organisation. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. While, as expected by WP:NGO, the "scope of their activities is national [..] in scale", there is no indication that the org "has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". Searches in national news outlets return only passing mentions. For example, a search in The Irish Times returns only passing mentions and "letters to the editor" by people associated with the org. A search on national broadcaster RTÉ 's website returns a single passing mention. A similar search across the entire Irish Independent stable of national/regional/local papers also only returns a single passing mention. Same goes for the Irish Examiner (4 passing mentions), and The Journal (2 passing mentions). Even a broad Google search returns barely 80 results (including the org's own website, socials, the above passing mentions in news articles, and random mentions in Facebook/LinkedIn posts and press releases). Not only is none of this useful in establishing notability, it is even insufficient to allow for expansion of this title beyond the bare sub-stub it has been for years. (Other than its own website, how would we source information on formation, dates, activities, etc?) In terms of WP:ATDs, given that the org isn't even mentioned once elsewhere on the project, I cannot conceive of an appropriate redirection (such that the org could be covered WP:WITHIN another title.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: or redirect to Medical education in Ireland. -- MarioGom (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah. Thanks. Hadn't spotted that title. FWIW, I'd personally (as nom) have no issue with a redirect to Medical_education_in_Ireland#Postgraduate_education (if that title had a short note/mention of the subject). Would seem a reasonable place to mention/cover the subject org... Guliolopez (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject does not appear to be notable - simply existing or having notable alumni does not mean that a school is notable, unless the school itself has been the subject of reliable, secondary coverage. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ireland. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Though I've myself triggered more than a few AfD/PROM noms on non-notable schools, I think this one might just about meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Barely. While most of the coverage I found in my own WP:BEFORE is from local/regional papers (like that in The Avondhu of school extension project and alumni), there is some coverage in national outlets (like Irish Examiner and Irish Independent - granted largely "match report" style reporting that is not especially WP:INDEPTH on the school itself). If there is consensus that the school doesn't have independent notability, then (per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and as an WP:ATD) I wonder if the title should be a redirect to Lismore,_County_Waterford#Education. Where much of the cited content could be merged. Outright deletion does not, IMO, seem to be an appropriate outcome... Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. apart from articles about individual athletes from the school, I dont really see in-depth coverage of the school itself. I dont believe that coverage of athletes or participants in science competitions should count towards notability of the school itself since it is about the person that competes and not their school. The only article about the school itself seems to be the building project but that doesnt seem to provide enough material to write a full article. --hroest 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Article_alerts#RfD

See: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Template:Hiberno-English

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

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

I think this should be redirected to Leo XIV as the primary topic. The current pope is regularly referred to as "Pope Bob" by media outlets, and thus readers searching that name are most likely to be looking for Leo XIV at present. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, Disambiguations, Italy, Peru, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Seems to be a fairly clean case of WP:PTOPIC. Most mentions of "Pope Bob" are referring to Leo XIV. Nahida 🌷 00:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was also a (slightly ironic) nickname for Robert G. Ingersoll. [93] I'm too tired to add add it to the article/dab, but with three potential subjects, we're looking more at moving than redirecting, right? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added to article and page. Thanks for the cite. I agree. Move first to Pope Bob (disambiguation) and then redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep disamb., "Pope Bob" has redirected to Robert Anton Wilson since November 2019. Not many views, but a long-time nickname for Wilson both among the subgenius and, mainly, the Discordians. If redirected to Leo XIV a hatnote to Wilson seems an option. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient settlements of the Liri Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TNT: this article is likely entirely AI-generated, and cites fictitious sources, see here I'm mostly concerned about volume here - if it was a start-class length article on a notable topic with a dozen potentially verifiable claims, I'd think it might be worth salvaging, but there's just too much, and deleting the page rather than blanking and redirecting means all the slop isn't sitting there in the page history for someone to rediscover. happy to withdraw if people make improvements to the article and there's consensus that all the problems have been addressed, but in my experience if we let it sit in the expectation that someone *could* fix it in the future it will probably just stay the way it is Psychastes (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete: I'll repost here what I said in a conversation on the topic on the WP:CGR talk page:

The article still "smells" a bit AI to me -- it has a few features that ChatGPT etc really like, such as bullet-pointed lists with bolded first words, tables, and fluffy, vaguely promotional language:

• These projects exemplify current methodological approaches in Mediterranean archaeology and continue to yield new insights into the development of ancient settlements in relation to their environmental and cultural contexts.
• These settlements collectively demonstrate how frontier regions between different cultural spheres developed during periods of political transformation, making them relevant comparative material for understanding similar processes throughout the ancient Mediterranean world.
• These settlements, which include important Volscian centers later incorporated into Roman territory, offer archaeologists and historians an exceptional case study of pre-Roman indigenous development, Roman colonization strategies, and the process of cultural integration in ancient Italy

I'm uneasy about this one. On one level, the topic's clearly notable and has plenty written about it (even if it doesn't necessarily have to be a stand-alone article), there's a lot of information in the article, and on a casual scan nothing sticks out as glaringly wrong. On the other hand, the article does have evident deficiencies (particularly layout, as well as the tone issues alluded to above) and, most seriously, uncited material. Given that there's a suspicion of AI use, I can see a case for WP:TNT -- since, as Psychastes notes above, that concern requires (at minimum) the verification of every single thing in a reliable source.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. For example, Citations 5 and 6 don't match what's online. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable person. Failes WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:BIO. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Svartner (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No significant, major updates since article creation in 2010. Although offline sources may exist, we can't assume them to be the case. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I did a WP:BEFORE and didn't find anything about the player, just about a guitarist with the same name. Svartner (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The was PRODed and should have been pruned then, but here we are. Claims on the page fall into two categories: true but not noteworthy, and not supported by any source so unverifiable or possibly false. The only verifiably true claim is that the subject is a FIDE Arena Grandmaster. This may sound impressive but this conveys no status in international chess. The AGM title is a recent invention of FIDE to garner some money from online chess -- in other words, a cash grab. The chess game victory in the article is a blitz game over another non-notable chess player of moderate club strength at best. The claim that the subject represented Italy in the Chess Olympiad is almost certainly false since his national ranking among Italian players is 10888 and he has no over-the-board titles. This is shown clearly at the FIDE Profile link used to try to cite the Olympiads claim but which actually punctures it. The claim of a 2021 tournament victory points to an irrelevant page of chess book reviews from 2006. Similarly the claims of tournament successes in 2022 points to a page listing winners of the Czech championship. Obviously these references were copied from different articles and have no connection to the subject. The verifiable claims are not notable and the notable claims are not verifiable. Quale (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom.. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even notable enough to have an Italian Wiki page. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. 10888th best chess player in Italy is not a claim to notability. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with proposer's summary at top of page.Brittle heaven (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator summed it up perfectly. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is an easy call. For all the reasons above, Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Former scholar (he appears to now be working in private sector) with low research impact. Has never held a senior academic post, and his books were not widely reviewed either.

The article was created in 2010, before the subject had even earned his PhD, and was presumably made in order to promote his first book. Leonstojka (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, I could only find 5 entries in JSTOR and no review of his book at all. I found no indication of notability. --hroest 15:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Italy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I'm also suspicious about the two major early contributors. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi there. I came across this article via Special:Random and am quite alarmed by the fact it has (almost) no references. At first, I presumed it was just because of poor referencing and a classic case of deletion is not cleanup, but after scouring the internet I cannot find any significant coverage of him anywhere; all sources are either about his brother Eddie Cheever (who is reasonably notable), or are just entries in various racing driver sites (which is what the two refs are). I accidentally proposed deletion rather than sending to AfD so I'll fix that in a second. Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC) JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Finding online SIGCOV of late 80s/early 90s drivers is often very difficult – this article needs more references – but as a multi race winner and title contender in Japanese F3000 (the pinnacle of single-seater racing in Asia, quite lucrative at the time) Ross' own notability shouldn't be in question. MSport1005 (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per MSport1005's rationale. Finding web articles pre-early 2000s about motorsport, especially Japanese F3000 is really hard but to say that all sources are either entries or about his brother Eddie is a complete lie. [94], [95] are just two examples of sources I found, but I'd also argue that a 2-time grand prix winner and a Japanese F3 champion shouldn't even be nominated for deletion. [96],[97], [98].

Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 11:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Many hits in Gnewspapers, this one [99][ talks about him. Was mentioned in an accident, coverage in Brazil [100], [101]. Mentioned in a retrospective here [102], showing lasting notabilty. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Competed in some of the highest levels of racing -Drdisque (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per sources presented above. Svartner (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sufficient coverage has been found to meet at least SPORTBASIC and it can be very reasonably assumed that more exists due to his achievements. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Sportivo Giacinto Facchetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Without independent secondary sources or WP:SIGCOV, this Italian training ground fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Inter Milan Youth Sector as possible search term. GiantSnowman 19:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I can say that most people in Milan have no idea this place exists. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not true. Interello is very well known. In 2006 it was named in honour of Giacinto Facchetti, a legend of the Grande Inter.--Dipralb (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. as above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The centre is used for the matches and training for that of the Inter Milan youth sector and that of the women's team. It is no different from Juventus Training Center in Vinovo.--Dipralb (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The artist does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST, as a teacher they do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The sources consist of blogs (Weird Fiction, and Trend Hunter), press releases or primary sources with a simple name check. None of these are reliable sources that provide significant coverage. An online BEFORE did not find anything of value, just social media posts and eBay. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Visual arts, Photography, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dont see any indication of notability, the claim that her work is in multiple permanent exhibitions is not supported by the source attached. If it were, this would change the picture. --hroest 13:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's one good source, about a 2006 exhibition, but it's a primary source, and does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:NSPORTS-failing LUGSTUB-a-like. No corresponding IT Wiki article.

The article makes repeated statements about Palazzi winning individual "medals" at the gymnastics tournaments in Turin and Paris. In reality no individual medals were awarded until 1922, with individual scores (not medals) only being recognised retrospectively after 1922. Scores conferred retrospectively years after the event, as a statistical artefact, cannot indicate notability, since they are not subject to the same assumption that they will have generated significant coverage that usually attends such awards. Palazzi's team won the team bronze in Paris and Turin, but Palazzi does not inherit the notability of his team per WP:NTEAM. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. There was a prominent Italian priest by the same name born in 1917. The only reference in the article is to a bare list that can be seen here. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per WP:NOLYMPIC: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete in any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games". Even though there are gaps in the proper sources, the notability is undeniable. Svartner (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where does it say he won a medal at the Olympic Games? FOARP (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen him as an Olympic medalist, not a world medalist. I will withdraw my vote. Svartner (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner, a note that even if he met NOLY, per NSPORT the article is still required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist. If someone has access to appropriate access to offline Italian sources without being able to find content, please let me know. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of WP:NGYMNAST is he supposed to meet? Significant coverage is not likely to exist simply as a result of retrospectively-awarded individual scores given decades after the event. No individual medal were awarded at this event. FOARP (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be your opinion, but you can’t claim that. Retrospective Olympic medalists have for instance received coverage. 95.98.65.177 (talk),

• Delete - In fact he does not meet WP:NGYMNAST as that specifically refers to individual medals, not team ones, and despite what the page says, there was no pommel horse individual medal at that event. But, in any case, even if he did meet NGYMNAST, it is still required that the page must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. We cannot get away with just saying such sources are likely to exist. Subject does not meet GNG as we do not have SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Offline Italian language sources are likely to only include primary sources (newspaper reports, event programmes, certificates, records etc. are all primary sources). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahh, I didn't know that. Do you have a reliable source for your claim? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What claim? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume he means the fact that no individual medals were awarded? Here on page 76. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, indeed thanks! But I don’t see that Wikipedia is wrong at all the pages so I started searching. I see in this document their achievements are recognized retrospectively. And they are also included official in the overall medal table. So with this recognition you can’t state on the basis of your OR-reasoning that NGymnastics doesn’t apply as it is likely that there is written receiving recognition. There were also no medals awarded at the 1896 Summer Olympics, while retrospectively they are also medalists (counts also for the total medal table) and have received coverage because they received the recognition. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't at all likely that retrospectively-awarded scores, given decades after the event, in championships that were not considered "world championships" at the time, will have attracted any significant coverage at all. This may well be the reason why the World Championships aren't explicitly mentioned as "elite competitions" at WP:NGYMNAST, and shouldn't simply be assumed as being in there now in all cases.

  To see that this is so you need only read contemporaneous reports of these events (e.g., 1 2 3) - a single paragraph or two about the event as a whole in which individual events aren't mentioned at all (because everyone at the time thought it was just a team event, because that's what it was).
  

  It's true that FIG has decided at some point in the last 110 years to engage in a bizarre kind of make-believe in which atheletes competing for countries that didn't exist at the time (and even don't exist now e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), were awarded "medals" that didn't exist at the time, for events that didn't happen at the time. The question is whether independent and reliable sources have gone along with this and given significant coverage to the subject on that basis - as far as I can see they haven't.

  That last point matters a lot - because WP:NSPORTS2022 says that sports bios have to have at least one instance of significant coverage in an independent reliable source. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your extensive reasoning, and I understand your opinion. However it is still it’s not possible with own research to claim that the person is not meeting NGYMNASTS. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Showing that WP:NGYMNAST is met requires positive research to show that it is met. Specifically: it requires you to show that the competition was an elite one equivalent to the modern events listed. The 1911 Turin tournament was not, not least because individual medals weren’t awarded at it. FOARP (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of whether or not Palazzi was awarded any individual medal at the time, can you point to specific language within WP:NGYMNAST that states that the individual medals won at a competition had to have been awarded at the time and not retroactively? I see no specific language within NP:GYMNAST that specifically deals with the issue of retroactively vs contemporaneously awarded medals. Also, in the website that you have leaned on heavily for your deletion nominations and edits, Gymnastics-History.com, very many uses and reproductions of original source materials therein show that some of these games were covered by a number of periodicals of the time, thereby further satisfying notability criteria. Starting with the very first of these games, according to Gymnastics-History.com, a quote-in-translation from the August 17, 1903 edition of Le Matin states "This is an innovation: for the first time we have seen elite gymnasts of various nationalities compete among themselves, chosen by each Federation from among its best men.". This helps establish the notability of the very first of these tournaments. Furthermore, elsewhere you have stated that, officially or not, that these were not truly Worldwide (not exclusively European) championships. However, the all-around champion at these games Joseph Martinez was French-Algerian, born in Algeria, which is in Africa, not Europe; additionally 1909 and 1913 All-Around Champion from these games Marco Torres was also French-Algerian, born in Algeria, Africa. You would know this if you had read the leader for the article of the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships where you, further on down the article, denied the worldwide nature of these games "as such" due merely to the technicality that, at the time, the FIG was still termed the FEG. Well, there's also the technicality of Martinez and Torres not being exclusively European - they were also African. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It says "Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition (see below)". No individual medals were awarded at the 1911 Turin tournament. Any award was only made decades later. And as has been pointed out numerous times, at least one instance of IRS SIGCOV is needed in any event. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another thing I think I need to point out about your reasoning is that when you say "It's true that FIG has decided at some point in the last 110 years to engage in a bizarre kind of make-believe in which atheletes competing for countries that didn't exist at the time (and even don't exist now e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), were awarded "medals" that didn't exist at the time, for events that didn't happen at the time", you might be looking at the overall body of work made by the FIG, IOC, Wikipedians, and other sources and be confused by the seeming lack of consistency with how medals are awarded to countries contemporaneously and respectively. For the majority of the history of the sport of gymnastics at the level of the modern Olympic Games and the World Championships (1896-present), both CzechoSlovakia and Yugoslavia existed. Those countries' efforts mattered at the time 'and still matter as they are a part of history. As for the issue of events not existing at the time, my understanding is that even at the Olympic Games, whereas the sport of gymnastics is concerned, there was no separate, dedicated individual competition at all until the 1972 Olympics, but nevertheless, individual medals were awarded based upon the performances of the individual athletes at the team competition. By the logic you have consistently employed in your rationales for deletion, this would then call for the deletion of the articles for such giants in the sport as Larisa Latynina, who for many years had more total Olympic medals than any other athlete in the history of the Olympic games, and Vera Caslavska who is the only gymnast ever, male or female, to win Olympic Gold on every individual event. You have to look at the logic and rationales that you have employed consistently and as a bottom line and realize the implications that such rationales have for massive, widespread deletionism. As much of a minefield of seemingly contradictory policies and scattered nuances as Wikipedia seems to be at times, your consistent insistences, if applied uniformly, would cause the content of Wikipedia to end up being only a very small fraction of what it is now, at least whereas the world of sport is concerned.QuakerIlK (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not matter whether the subject meets NGYMNAST or not if they do not have IRS SIGCOV sourcing cited in the article. Articles are not deleted solely because the subject doesn't meet NGYMNAST, they are deleted because they fail the requirement for sportsperson articles. The only impact meeting NGYMNAST would have is if an IRS SIGCOV source was already identified, at which point the rebuttable presumption of further GNG-meeting coverage existing could potentially delay needing to demonstrate the subject actually does meet the "multiple sources" requirement for GNG. Instead of spending thousands of words trying to convince us that retroactive recognition "counts" for NGYM purposes, you should instead be looking for IRS SIGCOV sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NGYMNAST, as a subsidiary of NSPORT, requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article, which has not been satisfied. The entire point of the subcriteria, post-NSPORT2022, is to predict which athletes are/were most likely to have received GNG coverage. Recognition by independent sources, such as contemporary or retrospective media, is necessary, and empirically positive predictive power has been constrained to individual medalists. For that and other reasons, retroactive "awarding" of individual medals by non-independent bodies like FIG would not count for the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Delete is not the best option for a person meeting WP:GYMNAST and would redirecting to Italy at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in any case be a better solution. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - People have been canvased in to this discussion by this non-neutral notice at the Gymnastics project. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Copy/Paste from a separate AfD: I guess it's my turn. As others have noted, FOARP AfD'ed many articles targeted all under the same rationale which directly affected WikiProject Gymnastics. In an effort to have a centralized discussion, QuakerIlK included not just potential !keep votes, but those who had voted for deletion on the other conversations as well. It does not appear anyone new has since joined this AfD as a result. GauchoDude (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Posting a link saying that you want to vote keep on all of the discussions listed there, to the Gymnastics project, is a clear invitation to project members to go and vote keep in them. That's the essence of canvassing. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is moot anyway because WikiProject Gymnastics is a ghost town nowadays. The previous five small topics there go back to 2023 and the recent archives don't look much better. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I overturned a bad close by a new (not autoconfirmed) editor. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and another one by an IP. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Current sourcing is comprised of two brief mentions of this working audio engineer. Definitely accomplished, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to deletion: Studio audio engineers like Nuccio Rinaldis, fulcrums of the discography in Italy with their constant work in pursuit of "vocal and instrumental sound perfection" (from the first to the last note down to mixing) in front of recording desks alongside proven successful artists with millions of records sold and million-dollar turns of business, have no media sponsors to pull from to retrieve sources. But this is not a culturally significant reason to propose deletion of the entry. The works done, widely historicized, are the equivalent of reliable sources. --CoolJazz5 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's date added bibliography. --CoolJazz5 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with Mina, not notable outside of his work with the singer. Also, the previous comment claiming "producing successful records is equivalent to reliable sources" is hilarious lol

ApexParagon (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BluRadio (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)

2005 European Taekwondo Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deleted back in 2022. Same issues still apply, but an editor continues to recreate the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete and possibly block the editor in question for adding un-sourced content. JTZegers (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I feel that there is a chance for more sources to exist, but through newspapers.com all I got was one mention that is at least somewhat decent coverage. Ping if sources are found but does not seem like enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is no different from the other 26 European Taekwondo Championships. I think the information on the website www.taekwondodata.com is sufficient. If additional sources are needed, is it not possible to request additional sources, not to delete this page? Deleting this page or blocking me is a non-solution. To write something about this page, I think you should take a look at the world taekwondo championship pages or other continental taekwondo tournaments. Many of them have been created this way.Pehlivanmeydani

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

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

Poor sourcing, fails WP:GNG. Noting that some review articles exist about Oxylabs, although they appear to contain multiple affiliate links. The only piece of significant coverage I'm seeing about the company exists in the form of this TechRadar article about a lawsuit.^[1] 30Four (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. No RS, no SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: It is among the most notable residential proxy providers, along with Luminati. There's quite some technical discussion and brief company description in a book [103] published by O'Reilly Media, which is one of the top publishers in its category. There's also mentions in a lot of papers like [104] or [105], including significant technical discussion involving independent research of its network [106]. Also an in-depth review at PCMag [107]. And the source mentioned in the nomination. In terms of WP:ORGDEPTH, it seems a bit borderline though. MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no majr coverage. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A 20-year "mainly diplomatic" territorial dispute doesn't rate a standalone article. This is covered in other articles, mainly Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute, as well as 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. Some details could be merged into the former. The misleading infobox makes it seem like this was a war, which it wasn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A very cursory search of just the article title showed at least two journal articles about this dispute ([108][109]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([110][111]). Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A 20-year quarrel isn't an "event". I'm not disputing that there was a meaningful dispute. There was a decades-long struggle for control of Vilnius, but IMO it should be (and is already) covered in the Vilnius Region article. There is no need for two articles covering the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to have been previously deleted on Feb. 2024 as complete WP:OR. scope_creep^Talk 07:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lithuania, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Montenegrin pro-government protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Part of the 2022 Montenegrin crisis and doesn't have much significance to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Montenegro. A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No strong opinion here, but deletion seems unnecessary, better to merge to 2022 Montenegrin crisis. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2022 Montenegrin crisis: The infobox on that page is even titled pro-government protests so these seem to be more or less the same events. The page is also desperately in need of being updated so I might take that up. (or at least updating the language) Moritoriko (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above, probably shouldn't be deleted but notable enough for mention in parent article. GoldRomean (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more look into the ATDs suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2022 Montenegrin crisis. The main article is pretty short, no need for this fork. MarioGom (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Willem Schreuder Jonkman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find anything else than genealogical data. Schreuder was indeed the son of the Governor of Ceylon but notability is not inherited. His name does not appear in the cited sources by Kroes, Wrede and Fieberger, that can be consulted online. I cannot find additional sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Netherlands. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article's creator PeterLSJ has not edited since 2018. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails both WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. Multiple search engines show nothing significant about the subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't think subject passes WP:NPROF - he is asst. prof, h-index of 12 and no named chair or prestigious professional memberships I can locate. Although he is briefly quoted in a few news articles due to his association with digital rights group Article 19, I don't see anything that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO. He co-authored a book w/ over a dozen other people but I can only find one possibly independent review in a reliable source. WP:BEFORE was done in google news/books/scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader (looking for Dutch and English sources). I don't see a clear merge/redirect target, and ultimately I think this might be WP:TOOSOON - as subject is still in relatively early days of his career (first publication was in 2017). Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Internet, and Netherlands. Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed on WP:NPROF. But this might qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO ? The work he has done with Mallory Knodel on oppressive language in the IETF got coverage in the New York Times ^[1], and the work he has done internet sanctions got covered in different places ^[2][3]. He also gets more widely cited about internet infrastructure governance issues, most notably outages in Wired ^[4] and The Face ^[5], on internet history and Web3 in the New Scientist ^[6], and on history of e-mail in Vox ^[7]. Seems to have more coverage in Dutch media. Detlevore (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply from nom - my rationale was that in most of the coverage linked above he is just quoted (i.e. if you ctrl+f his (first/sur)name you find basically 1-2 results). As it doesn't really go in-depth about him specifically, I didn't consider it sigcov. It's very impressive to have your work mentioned in prestigious publications so early in career, I'm just not sure it confers notability. Zzz plant (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof Assistant professors are almost never notable for WP:Prof and this is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - It's too soon for this emerging academic. The low h-index score indicates that they are not notable per WP criteria WP:PROF nor do they meet WP:GNG at this time. Perhaps in a few years after there is more attention to his work and research. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that makes sense! Detlevore (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see how he would be notable at present. gidonb (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There does not seem to be any reliable independent coverage on this center. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two academic and one journalist publication amongst the references, isn't that enough reliable independent coverage? Qrusty (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Small and short-lived infoshop. References are either passing or not independent. gidonb (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't think this public sculpture of a shopping fox meets notability criteria for works of art. Fails WP:GNG. The sourcing is weak, a blog and what appears to be a human interest story. A BEFORE search finds social media postings but not anything of substance. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Netherlands. Netherzone (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge with Florentijn Hofman. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.There seems to be quite a few news stories from when it was built/completed in 2020[112][113][114][115][116] and it's now getting sustained coverage such as this 2024 book[117]. The alternative to deletion would be a merge to Florentijn Hofman. Jahaza (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those, Jahaza. The book, 1000 Things to Do in the Netherlands, is not a serious art historical analysis, it's like a tourist guide, so I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Good work on finding the local news articles about the progress, but again, not sure about these, as it's local coverage reporting on a local spectacle. You came up with an excellent merge target as an alternative to deletion, makes a lot of sense. Netherzone (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge urgently into Florentijn Hofman. Totally unclear why this was spun out. gidonb (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The page is a record of a tournament, rather than an encyclopedia page. The contest has run since 1977, but there have been no individual pages since 2008. I've put some through PROD, but some have been dePRODed in 2008, 2010 & 2013 (22, 24 & 25). This one (20th) went to AfD in 2007. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

1st Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2nd Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3rd Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

4th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

6th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

8th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

9th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

10th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

11th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

12th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

13th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

14th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

16th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

17th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

19th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

22nd Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

24th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

25th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blackballnz (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Blackballnz: per WP:BEFORE, what is your assessment of the Japanese sources on various Kisei editions? MarioGom (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

LUGSTUB-a-like for a non-notable athlete who competed at the Olympic games, once. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE, though the fact that the name of the subject is literally the Dutch version of "John Smith" hardly helps. A search on RKD yields a single-paragraph description - not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Netherlands. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Netherlands at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics if there is no significant coverage. By the way, is RKD a reliable source? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  RKD is certainly a reliable source for artists, not for gymnasts. An artist with an RKD entry is presumably notable. I assume that the article can be saved based on Schmitt`s notability as an artist. I´ll look into it in the next few days. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Schmitt was part of the Dutch team that won a silver medal at the second World Gymnastics Championships in 1905. He came in 9th at the individual all around event that year. He was dutch national champion when the dutch team participated in the 1908 Summer Olympics. For these reasons, he explicitly meets WP:NGYMNAST. I have updated the article with this info. He also had formal training as an artist (drawing, sculpture) and was an accomplished musician (piano). A query at Delpher with the search term "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" renders over 200 hits in newspapers, magazines and books. I have not found a full biography but there are many references that show his activity as a gymnast, teacher, chairman of gymnastics associations, musician and drawer.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ruud Buitelaar, @Svartner - No individual medals were awarded at any gymnastics championships prior to 1922: they were purely team events (see page 76 here). At some point after 1922 (possibly as late as 2006 since the 1981 history doesn't mention it but the 2006 one does) scores were awarded retrospectively. A retrospectively-awarded score awarded years later is not the same as one received at the time for our purposes, since the coverage that surrounds winning a medal won't have happened.
  

  Team medals were awarded, but per WP:NTEAM, individuals don't inherit the notability of their team.
  

  Since Schmitt is such a common name, we cannot simply rely on numbers of hits as a source of coverage.
  

  I'm happy to withdraw if a single instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source (as is required for all sports biographies per WP:NSPORTS2022) can be produced for Schmitt, but not for single-sentence mentions that don't reach the SIGCOV standard. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – Per Ruud Buitelaar analysis. The subject is notable considering beyond the sporting context. Svartner (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The preoccupation over whether the subject meets NGYMNAST or not is misplaced, as per the overarching NSPORT guideline a source of IRS SIGCOV is required to be cited in the article for any presumptions of further GNG coverage existing to be applied. @Svartner @Ruud Buitelaar I've also looked through the Delpher archive and every single one of the 141 hits for "J. H. A. G. Schmitt" gymnastiek is either from in-house publications of orgs Schmitt belonged to (e.g. the "official organ" of the Dutch Olympic Committee, Zaan Gymnastics Association, etc.), or a passing mention:
  Non-independent:

• (62 hits) Passing mentions in "Het turnblad; orgaan van het Nederlandsch Gymnastiek Verbond": [118]
• (1 hit) Passing mentions in "Tijdschrift van het Nederlandsch Gymnastiek-Verbond": [119]
• (2 hits) KNGV announcement in "Olympic Day" (published by Dutch Olympics Committee) that says he will provide "piano accompaniment" at some KNGV event: [120]
• (3 hits) Passing mentions in "De Revue der Sporten: Officieel Orgaan van het Nederlandsch Olympisch Comité": [121][122]
• (2 hits) Passing mentions in "Algemeen Sportblad Voor N.-Holland: Officieel orgaan van den [...] Zaanschen Turnbond": [123][124]
• (1 hit) An announcement in "Weekly of the General Dutch Diamond Workers' Union" by the Arbeiders Gymnastiek Vereeniging listing him as its director: [125]
• (3 hits) Passing mentions in primary government "Report on the state of higher, secondary, and primary schools", e.g. By council resolution of 22 September, the municipal council appointed J. H. A. G. Schmitt as his successor for the current school year, who took up his position on 16 October. [126] and A periodic increase in annual salary was granted to J. H. A. G. Schmitt and Miss Dr. M. J. Baale.[127]
• (5 hits) Announcements in "De lichamelijke opvoeding; orgaan van de Vereeniging van Gymnastiek-Onderwijzers (L. en M.O.) in Nederland" (official organ of the Association of Gymnastics Teachers): [128]
• (2 hits) Passing mentions in "Nederlandsche sport: officiëel orgaan der [...] Nederl. Gymnastiek Verbond": [129][130]
• (4 hits) His name in a list of Olympics entrants published repeatedly by the "De Sport" the "official organ of the Rotterdam Football Association": [131][132]
• (1 hit) Apparently the alderman of the Amsterdam Gymnastics Association mentioned him as the former Association director and a current "musical accompanist at the ladies' practices" in a speech at an AGA celebration: [133]

Potentially independent, but trivial and/or primary:

• (1 hit) Name in a list in "Sport en sportwereld": [134]
• (52 hits) Name in a directory of grammar school teachers(??) in many "State Almanac" editions, e.g.: [135][136][137][138][139] (names in these lists are not deemed important enough to be in the index[140])

JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Nice job, @JoelleJay! I was just going through the same hits and, by and large, agree with your assessment that the vast majority, very close to 100%, are passing mentions. Whether or not the magazine of the Gymnastics Association is an independent source may be a matter of debate. In the article, I added a citation in Revue der Sporten that is rather critical of Mr Schmitt`s design of the poster for the 50th anniversary of the Association. I also cite a volume of Het Leven Geillustreerd, clearly an independent publication, dedicated to the same celebration, mentioning Schmitt as head organizer. Anyway, I made my point. I´ll make an entry for Schmitt in the Dutch Wikipedia so this information will not get lost if it is decided that the english version should be transformed in a redirect. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruud Buitelaar, according to NSPORT governing sports bodies are not considered independent so that magazine and all the others that are "official organs" of sporting orgs are definitely not independent. While HLG does seem independent, all it has is a photo caption stating "The head instructor, JHAG Schmitt", which is not enough for SPORTSCRIT. Revue der Sporten was published by the Dutch Olympic Committee and so is also not independent. Good idea to add it to nl.wp though! JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hopefully the nl wiki generates more info. I found a newspaper article (Nieuwsblad van het Noorden), definitely independent, that reports in some detail that Schmitt organized workshops to introduce rhythmic gymnastics in the Netherlands in the 1920s. On these occasions he also played the piano. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist. Per point 1 winning a medal at world championships and if he was also national champion in 1908(?) also per point 2. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep leaning to Keep: possibly meets point 2 of WP:NGYMNAST winning an individual national champion title in 1908(?). But also as introducer of rhythmic gymnastics in the Netherlands that is claimed in the article (didn't check the source) and as director of main gymnastics clubs. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NGYMNAST point 1 says (emphasis mine): Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition, so no, doesn't meet that with a team medal. Point 2 is for individual events. Also note JoelleJay's point that even if a subject meets NGYMNAST, at least one source is still required. I'm a bit reluctant to !vote on this one, considering Ruud Buitelaar's arguments above, but on the sourcing and the evidence, this looks like a reluctant redirect from me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, yes my fault. I missed it was a team event. I will adjust my vote. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @95.98.65.177, the more salient point here is that the article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV, which it does not. JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a few more citations. The poor showing at the 1908 Summer Olympics did cause a stir and Schmitt got some heat. De Telegraaf, a leading Dutch newspaper, and several other newspapers reported about Schmitt´s leading role in organizing entertainment for the team, which was seen as a lack of attitude toward the games. We had missed those news articles because he is not mentioned as "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" but as "Joh. Schmitt". Indeed, as WP:NGYMNAST states, SIGCOV is likely to exist for people like Schmitt. I continue my search. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sirfurboy and @JoelleJay: All Wikipedia articles require multiple IR SIGCOV to pass GNG. Even only one provided is too weak and still not enough. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely correct. However subject notability guidelines often provide a refutable presumption that sources will exist based on some additional criteria, and articles are often kept based on such additional criteria. Here, the additional criteria would be WP:GYMNAST. But what WP:SPORTCRIT says is that, when relying on such additional criteria, there must still be at least one IRS SIGCOV source actually on the page. This, it specifically says, does not show that the subject is notable, but it is a minimum requirement for anyone relying on the additional criteria in the subject notability guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Historical figure with unusually diverse accomplishments in gymnastics. Absolutely no BLP concern. Meets BASIC and HEY. Also, this article was created by User:Doma-w, not by User:Lugnuts! gidonb (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the required SIGCOV source? How does he even meet BASIC when all the coverage is primary and/or non-independent? This and this and this are primary accounts by attendees or eyewitnesses, this is a passing mention... JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gidonb - "this article was created by User:Doma-w", which is why the nomination says "Lugstub-a-like". And as disucssed, multiple instances of IRS SIGCOV are required here. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many Lugstubs. Why at all invoke this if an article is unrelated to Lugnuts? gidonb (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of keep !votes here, but unless I've missed it, no one's managed to find sigcov even still?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering The Netherlands Institute of Art History is a perfectly reliable, independent source. Schmitt´s biographical entry there provides significant information. That is one SIGCOV source. The article on the Dutch gymnastics team in London 1908, where Schmitt is signalled as the main culprit of the poor performance, was first published in the magazine of the Gymnastics Association, supposedly not an independent source, but then replicated in De Telegraaf, De Tijd, De Nieuwe Courant. They are independent, reliable sources. See also this discussion about, among other things, SIGCOV for topics over 100 years ago. The discussion also refers to WP:MULT to argue that redirect is not an option because Schmitt is notable for multiple events. I, for one, am extremely reluctant to delete lemma`s about people who lived over a century ago, for which we have indications that they are likely notable. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruud Buitelaar, that Netherlands Institute of Art History entry is a database entry, not sigcov. No comment on the others as whether a newspaper article is sigcov or not is up to the discussion participants. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, non-independent coverage does not become independent simply by being republished elsewhere. WP:MULT is not a policy or guideline and so is not an appropriate !vote rationale. We had a massive global consensus requiring sportsperson bios cite IRS SIGCOV, regardless of how old the topic is or how difficult potential sources are to access. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I striked my doubts and change to full Keep per WP:HEY and per WP:MULT as notable for multiple events indicated by Ruud Buitelaar. All coverage is from what I see reliable. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither HEY nor MULT is a valid keep rationale. The article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Out of the 300+ hits in Delpher, the article now has at least half a dozen of clippings from major Dutch newspapers in which Schmitt is mentioned, not in a trivial but in a significant way. I`d say we have more than enough SIGCOV. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources must also be independent, reliable and secondary, of course. News reports are generally primary. For instance, this one [141] tells us about a picture he has drawn. That is, the reporter has looked at the image, and reports on what they saw. It is an eye witness account, and although we can infer from this that the subject was a good painter but not so much a poster maker, and that he drew this specific picture, all the biographical information clearly relies on us doing our own analysis of that eyewitness account. It is primary, and thus does not count towards notability on English Wikipedia. Dutch Wikipedia has different rules, so it may be fine there (although I see that it has very similar rules to us on original research), but English Wikipedia requires secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, they are listed as good arguments to make in deletion discussion. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think there's enough info here considering that 1) the source material is foreign and limited and 2) it's over 100 years old. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It doesn't seem like this one meets WP:GNG. The references are not SIGCOV and most of them don't seem like reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't look like the sources are significant coverage, and while I don't know if this recreated version is significantly different from the previously deleted version, it seems that the previous deletion nomination closed with the same finding and it is unlikely that much changed. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Following sources seem to be coverage significant enough, considering he has been featured in DNA magazine and made headlines in AVN and XBIZ:

• Bright, Richard (2006-08-17). "Porn Star Q&A: Brian Hansen". AVN.
• "Meet Brian Hansen". Fleshbot. 2006-04-25.
• "COLT Launches Buckshot Man Brian Hansen's Fan Site". XBIZ. 2007-02-06
• "BRIAN HANSEN The life and times and pajamas of porn's latest superstar". DNA. No. 81. January 2006.
• "Brian Hansen's Grabby Snatch". DNA Magazine #90. July 2007. p. 10. Retrieved 2025-04-20 – via Scribd.
• Rice, G. Zisk (2010-01-08). "Buckshot Man Brian Hansen Returns in 'Lotus'". AVN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup could be done of unreliable sources, instead of deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources are too efficient (AVN) to justify keeping the article Iban14mxl (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes SIGCOV Madeline1805 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Needs coverage in more independent sources than AVN and DNA. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. The are all either not RS or not SIGCOV. Furthermore, the article is quite vague (e.g. "his parents were from two different continents") and certainly does not read as an encyclopaedic article. Overall, I'd say it could be saved if it wasn't for the questionable reliability of the sources, and the fact those are the best that seem to be available. JacobTheRox (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I believe there should be some coverage outside media only focused on the adult industry. That still leaves plenty of notable porn actors. gidonb (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Flag of Drenthe (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
• Flag of Flevoland (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
• Flag of Groningen (province) (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
• Flag of The Hague (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
• Flag of Weert (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

List of Norwegian artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar case to List of Danish artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards and List of Welsh artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards. I don't see any WP:RS taking significant notice of the phenomenon of Norwegian artists being nominated for the MTV Europe Music Awards. The sources recently added verify that the artists were respectively nominated for various awards at the MTV Europe Music Awards but, importantly, none of the sources discuss all 4 artists as a group nor is there any extended commentary on their Norwegian nationality. In fact, only the Billboard source seems to make any reference to Norway. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and couldn't find any news sources writing about this phenomenon. It seems to be a list for the sake of having a list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Awards, Lists, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fails NLIST. Delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The subject is not significantly discussed among WP:RS. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is an article about a mountain lake in Norway -- fails notability guidelines, by virtue of being a random lake in Norway. There are 300,000 lakes in Norway. Besides that, most of the article fails WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:NOTGUIDE; it talks about the amenities of the lake, like hikes, grills, and a nearby campsite. Serious NPOV issues, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Needless to say no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Norway. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it's not a "mountain lake" at all, it's located on the city outskirts and used as a hiking spot/campgrounds. "Needless to say" doesn't seem to hold water (!), why would that be needless to say? Where did you do your WP:BEFORE that is not Google? Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Needless to say was poor semantics, I apologize. I did my WP:BEFORE on JSTOR, Gbooks, GScholar, and norwegian google. I said it was a "mountain lake" because the article classifies it as a "tarn," which is a mountain lake. There some things, like "woah guys this lake exists," but imo it still fails under WP:NOTGUIDE-- I could be wrong, and if so, please let me know w/sources etc. This article is also an orphaned article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NPLACE and WP:NOTPROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I couldn't verify the "international #1" claim. If such a claim is false, this page clearly fails WP:BAND. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Chart history. Coverage of single. Coverage of album. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For instance, the third hit in the single search is about Brothers acquiring a gold record. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Per WP:BAND if you have Top 100 song in any country chart then you qualify.Darkm777 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It doesn't seem like this one meets WP:GNG. The references are not SIGCOV and most of them don't seem like reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't look like the sources are significant coverage, and while I don't know if this recreated version is significantly different from the previously deleted version, it seems that the previous deletion nomination closed with the same finding and it is unlikely that much changed. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Following sources seem to be coverage significant enough, considering he has been featured in DNA magazine and made headlines in AVN and XBIZ:

• Bright, Richard (2006-08-17). "Porn Star Q&A: Brian Hansen". AVN.
• "Meet Brian Hansen". Fleshbot. 2006-04-25.
• "COLT Launches Buckshot Man Brian Hansen's Fan Site". XBIZ. 2007-02-06
• "BRIAN HANSEN The life and times and pajamas of porn's latest superstar". DNA. No. 81. January 2006.
• "Brian Hansen's Grabby Snatch". DNA Magazine #90. July 2007. p. 10. Retrieved 2025-04-20 – via Scribd.
• Rice, G. Zisk (2010-01-08). "Buckshot Man Brian Hansen Returns in 'Lotus'". AVN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup could be done of unreliable sources, instead of deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources are too efficient (AVN) to justify keeping the article Iban14mxl (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes SIGCOV Madeline1805 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Needs coverage in more independent sources than AVN and DNA. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. The are all either not RS or not SIGCOV. Furthermore, the article is quite vague (e.g. "his parents were from two different continents") and certainly does not read as an encyclopaedic article. Overall, I'd say it could be saved if it wasn't for the questionable reliability of the sources, and the fact those are the best that seem to be available. JacobTheRox (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I believe there should be some coverage outside media only focused on the adult industry. That still leaves plenty of notable porn actors. gidonb (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Zoo (Norwegian band) (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)

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

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

A 20-year "mainly diplomatic" territorial dispute doesn't rate a standalone article. This is covered in other articles, mainly Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute, as well as 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. Some details could be merged into the former. The misleading infobox makes it seem like this was a war, which it wasn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A very cursory search of just the article title showed at least two journal articles about this dispute ([142][143]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([144][145]). Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A 20-year quarrel isn't an "event". I'm not disputing that there was a meaningful dispute. There was a decades-long struggle for control of Vilnius, but IMO it should be (and is already) covered in the Vilnius Region article. There is no need for two articles covering the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Just casual actor and dubber, perfoming mostly in secoundary/episodical roles or dubbing animation characters to fairytales. I don't see any notability guidelines accordinglly to him The Wolak (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Wolak (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Niche roles, and niche reception, the best source is a single small, very borderline SIGCOV piece in a niche portal (OnetKobieta). Too little for WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to have been previously deleted on Feb. 2024 as complete WP:OR. scope_creep^Talk 07:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lithuania, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested prod. Single source. Cannot find any other in-depth sources about this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This might about the person [146], I can only see an extract so I can't translate it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are some articles coming up in Google Scholar which mention this Zbigniew Bąk (I think, although his father had the same name ....), so it would probably be possible to add more sources. For someone living in the 15th century, we do seem to know quite a lot about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the Polish Wikipedia uses this ref:

• Alicja Szymczakowa, Zadorowie z Bąkowej Góry w: Herald – pismo Instytutu Heraldyki i Genealogii w Köln, 1993, Nr 7, s. 34-39

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did not find Zbigniew Bąk in the 31,247 entries in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (not to be confused with The Polish Biographical Dictionary which is offline and has only 900 entries). I'm leaning towards "delete" right now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Swaying towards a relist rather than a no-prejudice delete, but one relist might clear the air.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korczak's orphanages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a messy stub that hijacks its interwiki. Korczak ran two notable orphanages (Nasz Dom, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11789892, and Dom Sierot, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6431490). The article nominated here (Korczak's orhpanages) is incorrectly linked to Q6431490 (all other wikis in it are about Dom Sierot specifically); it also doesn't make obvious the concept of "Korczak's orhpanages", combined, has stand-alone notability (I see some passing mentions in my BEFORE, but no clear SIGCOV). The current article has just one (non-English) reference and is a stub; I suggest deleting it as it also seems to contain many errors. For example, it gives dates for its two orphanages, unnamed, as 1911-1942 and 1918-1940. The dedicated Wiki articles have different dates (1912-1944) and 1919-1946, reactivated in 1991). If our underreferneced stub cannot even get basic facts straight (such as names and dates), dubious notatability aside, WP:TNT is needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete / redirect to Janusz Korczak and hopefully articles about the orphanages can be written separately. I dont see a point to have a joint article that is a stub about both of them, conflating the two. In his bio (Lewowicki, Tadeusz. "Janusz Korczak." Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (2000).), there is only a mention of the "Krochmalna Street orphanage." for which land was purchased 1910 but not much more information. --hroest 20:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Niche Polish politician. Never held any office or won any election. He did declare himself as a candidate for a presidential election, but it's just a publicity stunt, with no serious coverage. No pl wiki interwiki, no sources in the article that meet WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can even defend this article, haha. The only thing that it's useful for is Joanna Senyszyn having her Nonpartisans endorsement link here. Polish kurd (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Niche NGO/political party with next to no visibility/recognition. If it is a party, there is no info on any elected officials or even elections it participated it. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The movement is an existing, formally established and growing association with social media presence. Other countries’ chapters of Volt, including the niche ones in the startup phase, have their own pages on Wikipedia. The argument that the association is not publicly well-known hence the article should be deleted is arbitrary.

It is not yet a formally established party, hence you unnecessarily expect elected officials, but neither are Volt chapters of other countries with their own Wikipedia webpages, operating as associations. Check the main page of Volt for further details. Daeheung (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not arbitrary, read WP:GNG. If similar or even less notable "start up" chapters have their own article - they need to be cleaned up as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then unless you clean up all small chapters of Volt, in fact being active registered associations, by your arbitrary argument of being unrecognized by wider public, you cannot clean up solely Volt Poland. Daeheung (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Side note: article also being currently discussed in deletion context on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:04:25:Volt Polska). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you, although from my standpoint this creates a pattern of arbitral inconsistency since there's other national chapters of Volt also operating as associations and not yet parties with their own Wiki pages. The article is going to be recreated anyway once the association registers as a party. "Other stuff exists" refers to comparisons understood in a wider sense than literal corresponding chapters of the same multinational organization. Daeheung (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be deleted again if there is no WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources. Not all entities registered as parties are notable. Only the "important" ones. As for inconsistency, sure. Folks spam articles on Wikipedia trying to promote niche concepts, we keep deleting them, but it takes time to clean up spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Volt Europa. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see here

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

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

I believe he clearly fails WP:SPORTCRIT, having only played in the semi-amateur Macedonian league as well as scond and fourth tiers in other countries. But does he meet GNG? I believe that he does not. Ref 1 is paywalled, but I don't think it's enough anyway. Refs 2 and 3 are clearly just a few sentences, and ref 4 is a match report, i.e. not specifically about Gassamá. I also found some scant match report-type of coverage in Portuguese. Geschichte (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Question i have seen in other afds where people argue that playing in a top flight league in any country has the subject pass the nesccary guidelines and it says in the article that the subject played 16 games for a top flight North Macedonian team though I'm not sure if this argument is vaild so I haven't voted yet Scooby453w (talk)

Level of play is totally irrelevant. Also please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). GiantSnowman 18:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Level of play is totally irrelevant." Since when? It's not long ago when it was totally relevant.@GiantSnowmanSyvä-äksy (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS2022. GiantSnowman 18:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, the First League of Macedonia was not seen as "granting" notability even before 2022. @Syvä-äksy For the sake of discussion, it would be interesting if you could elaborate on ref #1, are you able to bypass the paywall? How lenghty and detailed is the article? Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no.@GeschichteSyvä-äksy (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Lupului minibus train collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Romania. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added several sources referring to this accident, which seems to have gotten quite a bit of coverage in the local (and even national) press. Turgidson (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 11 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The accident was certainly notable: it was mentioned repeatedly in the Romanian press; it was considered to be one of the worst road-rail accidents in Romania in the preceding ten years (sources refer to it as a "carnage"); it led to a proposal in Parliament to improve the railway crossing (which has not been acted upon); and it is still mentioned in the national press to this day (references from 2023–2024). Turgidson (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems to be a bit of WP:LASTING there, and the article is well sourced for GNG, so I am not sure what's wrong. Govvy (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Geoană 2024 presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Campaign page for a candidate who got just over 5%, does not indicate standalone notability. Also covered more in-depth at his own article Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mircea_Geoană#2024_presidential_election. ApexParagon (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails WP:GNG. The refs are copies of the same sensationalist article. I didnt find and native Russian sources, and English sources for the term are something else. --Altenmann >talk 00:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did find russian sources: [147] [148] but I am still not sure about notability. --Altenmann >talk 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the references is a bylined article from The New York Times. The South African article is credited to Sapa/DPA, which I think means that Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a reliable news agency, wrote the article and it was distributed in South Africa by South African Press Association, also reliable. I hoped to find the original DPA article by searching for Raketenstiefel, but only found uses of the term in the context of goblin rocket boots in World of Warcraft. Still, we have multiple in-depth references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find anything in the English sources to support the use of the term "rocket boots". (And it's certainly incorrect from a technical perspective; based on the description, these boots are much more akin to piston engines than rockets.) The Times article avoids using any name for the boots at all, and the Dispatch article refers to them once each as "quickwalkers" and "fuel-powered superboots"; do the Russian sources give these contraptions any particular name? Omphalographer (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It was not a real product and didn't have name, usually it was called "Сапоги-скороходы" - in quotes - the Russian counterpart of Seven-league boots. Actually, it was a good question. Now I noticed the bureaucratic name of a model of the device, "устройство механизации бега" ("device for the mechanization of running", "run mechanization device") and this Russian term gives more hits, mostly anecdotes, probably not original. --Altenmann >talk 23:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Notability: Đorđe Nešković has led a national team at multiple European Curling Championships, which is a significant international competition. That's a point in favor of notability.
• Achievement: He won Serbia's first ever curling medal at the 2013 European C-Group Championships. First national medals in any sport usually carry weight.

Боки 💬 📝 21:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those criteria meet WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2013 European Curling Championships – Men's tournament#Group C where his name is mentioned. By the way, has anyone tried searching under "Ђорђе Нешковић"? Because that's where potential coverage would be. Following WP:NSPORTS2022, notability should be only judged by references provided on the article, not achievements anymore. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Flag of Serbia (Habsburg) (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

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

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

This footballer only played two matches for DAC Dunajská Streda before disappearing for over one decade. The only secondary source I found is Pravda, a passing mention in squad list. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - playing 19 minutes of football is not a "credible claim of significance or importance". Geschichte (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Geschichte. RossEvans19 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems to clearly fail notability guidelines. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is only one source and it is not enough to support notability for this article. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search. I've found two potential secondary sources (1 & 2) referenced in the current state of the article, but the first thing that struck out to me is that they do not seem to be WP:SIGCOV, so there is no real reason to presume that the subject is notable as of right now. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Slovakia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in addition to the two sources above, I'm able to find quite a bit of material in Slovak sources (1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6) indicating he's at least regionally notable in Slovakia for his darting abilities. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – He is a young athlete who just started his career. Can anyone analyze whether or not the sources found by Ser! count towards WP:GNG?⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - There is nothing on the page that points towards GNG, but Ser! has added a number of new sources. [149] is an interview, so that is N per WP:IV. The others are all SIGCOV, but all focussing on him as a rising hope who is top of his youth class and even won a competition in the Netherlands. Now I don't know if we call darts players athletes, but I think WP:YOUNGATH applies in any case. He clearly made a stir in June 2022, after winning in the Netherlands, but these are youth tournaments, and the press interest in him is localised (although across Slovakia) and also occasioned, and thus primary news reporting. At this point I agree with the press reporting that he looks like a Slovak hopeful for great future success, but that is in the future. Draftify recognises that this may occur. However, there is a risk that the draft will be abandoned before the success occurs, which could be some time away. I would also be happy with a redirect to preserve page history. However, there is not much that is actually usable in the final article in what we have now (again, ther sourcing on the page as it is will not do). Failing agreement on a suitable redirect, I would see no problem with deletion. The article can be written if and when he achieves success in major tournaments and elicits significant secondary coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable cyclist. I was unable to find any sources about him. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Spain. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unable to find anything on him? Where'd you look? A quick search brings up things like this, this, and this. They're not necessarily SIGCOV, but I feel like the WP:BEFORE on these noms are poor. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WhoIsCentreLeft: I was unable to find any sources about him. Really? No source at all? I would suggest putting some additional effort on WP:BEFORE before nominating. There are many sources about him on a cursory search on Google News: [150][151][152]. That's just a few where the headline is about him. There's also plenty of others where the body of the articles cover him too. MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per MarioGom sources. Svartner (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources to establish a lasting impact in the field. Most references appear to be minor news snippets, social media, or self-published material, which do not qualify as substantial verification under Wikipedia's standards. Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Business, Philippines, and Spain. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are demonstrably false. Reverse this unjustified nomination for deletion. You have claimed multiple falsehoods which are against the Community Guidelines of Wikipedia.

To clarify:

List of nationally and internationally distributed news organizations referenced in the article:

- The Inquirer.net

- The Philippine Star

- ABS-CBN News

- the Manila Bulletin

- Mega magazine

- Philstar.com

- PEP. Ph

All sources explicitly note Stacey Gabriel and her notable activities.

---

Meanwhile your claims of "self published" material being used is false. Note an example of it or kindly retract your false claim. If you cannot back up this claim, nor retract it, your submission will be flagged as an abuse of Wikipedia policy.

---

"Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition"

Multiple independent sources outline dozens of TV series episodes Stacey participated in, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant.

Are these not notable?

---

"social media"

There are no social media references in this article.

---

Given no evidence to support this unjustified action, reverse this flagrantly unjustified and deceptive nomination for deletion. Mickfir (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Mickfir,

I want to clarify that the nomination was made in good faith, based on a review of the article’s current sourcing and in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO some of the listed sources are reliable, and this Afd only for english version. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why include false claims that social media and self published material was used as references? There is not a single referenced source that was self published nor any reference to social media. This is a harmful oversight at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

As for notability... I repeat, dozens of interdependently verified TV Episode performances and multiple national pageants including Miss Universe Philippines as 1st Runner-up. Mickfir (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check! WP:AFD is not only for deletion it's a basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia. Many contributors will review it and vote, so there's no need to panic just let the contributors decide.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me check" ? You nominated this article for deletion without even checking if the claims you are making against it are true?

Perhaps this article is worth a read: Wikipedia:Don't lie

"basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia"

No. Wikipedia best practice clearly indicates that if an article has areas for improvement, the 'Talk' page should be used to suggest edits, or you make the edits yourself.

Nominating an article for deletion based on false claims is a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia recommended practice. Mickfir (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources like ABS-CBN News, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, and others mentioned by Mickfir are reliable. But some, like IMDb, aren't and should be removed. — doclys (❀) 18:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage, only initial news reports and then the follow up news report when the driver died. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Spain. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's been sustained coverage in reliable sources in late 2016 [153], 2017 [154], 2018 [155], 2019 [156], 2021 [157], 2023 [158][159][160][161]. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  2016 is breaking news about closing the case, 2017 and 2018 are breaking news about reopening the case, 2019 is breaking news about reclosing the case, 2021 is breaking news about a memorial (but also has significant coverage of the crash itself), the 2023 sources are about the driver's death and the subsequent end of the case, and 2021 (which you listed as 2023) is breaking news about a memorial. The 2021 source is promising, but I'd hope for at least one source that actually demonstrated that it's notable in its own right as opposed to contemporary coverage over a long period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple WP:RS found.Sigma World (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm failing to find any in-depth coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. While they may meet point 5 of WP:BAND, a) I'm not finding any sources to support this and b) the record label in question is entirely unsourced as well. The best I've found is this passing mention in a bio about one of its former members. I would have PRODed this but it was previously had a PROD removed in 2008 (although seemingly without solving the underlying problems). While there may be sources in Spanish that I'm missing, the .es version was also deleted in 2023. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't add much to the nominator's investigation. This band is occasionally mentioned as an early stop for some members who went on to more notable things, but Darna themselves never achieved any significiant and dedicated media coverage that I can find. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Flight 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated, which is made all the more evident as the Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission did not issue a single recommendation as a result of this accident (Recomendaciones sobre seguridad – page 23). WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Spain. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:News article. Not a WP:CASESTUDY or otherwise subject to any secondary coverage that indicates long-term significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner § Accidents and incidents: This article lacks reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and its WP:LASTING effects are also bare bones. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of secondary sources online. Per WP:NEXISTS, it does not matter if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There was extensive contemporary coverage in reliable sources back in the day (2001), virtually on every Spanish newspaper. There was a newspaper piece on it published in 2013, so there was sustained coverage [162]. MarioGom (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Practically everything that has been written to expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted is false (other than the Thirty Years' War section). The previous user who withdrew their AfD nomination did not fact check any of the sources or information added. The article has been expanded incorrectly and mostly falsified (though it's likely, or at least I'd like to think, that it wasn't done on purpose and the editor who expanded the article just wanted to help improve it). If you wish to help improve the article, please use proper sources which correlate with the information written. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Military units of battalion size or larger are generally considered to be notable. The answer is editing and improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sweden Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Switzerland Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ukraine

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Yugoslavia