Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

12 March 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 11	March 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kota Ishida

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

Played twice professionally [1] before retiring in 2021. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Koník

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

Football manager who spent managing lower league teams without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 12 March 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꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights At Gumball's

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

Disputed draftify. This is a fan adaptation of a video game/TV series. Can't find any independent or reliable source reviews of the game itself, proposing delete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Video games. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spiro (company)

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

The sources online and within the page don't provide notabilty as NCORP requires. Moslty trivial coverage, trades. 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article clearly meets WP:CORP. There are multiple significant independent sources. Jeune Afrique is the biggest and most reliable international source in Africa ("most widely read pan African magazine" on their wiki page). The Africa Report is a qualitative source. La Tribune is a leading French weekly financial newspaper. Radio France Internationale is the website of "one of the most-listened-to international radio stations in the world" as we can read on the wiki page. BusinessDay (Nigeria) (which I just added) is a prominent Newspaper in Nigeria. The Standard (Kenya)(which I just added) is, according to its wiki "one of the largest newspapers in Kenya with a 48% market share". The Sun (Nigeria) (which I just added) according to his wiki "highest-selling newspaper in Nigeria". This Day and African Business (Which I just added) are also worth mentioning. Those sources are all centered on Spiro (not just mentions), several have a strong reputation for independence, and there is significant coverage.Bibamad (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Sicotte-Levesque

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

Non-notable bio, lack of sources about the subject herself. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has founded an impactful media organsiation, for which she has been awarded a national honour and also produced a film. ash (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Analyst (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Has been nominated for PROD twice. Constant promotional issues. Imcdc Contact 12:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Imcdc Contact 12:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Leaving aside the repeated addition-removal of promo text, and the 2016 and 2019 PRODs, searches do not find the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability (either for Decision Analyst or the associated Symmetric Sampling). AllyD (talk) 17:35, 4 March 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 14:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Dunst (singer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/William Dunst (singer)

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

Zero reliable sources with any depth of coverage; just vanity press sites and other PR stuff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter (Indian beer)

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

The parent company might satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies, but this beer brand does not. The sources do not provide sufficient substantial coverage of this brand required to satisfy ORGCRIT. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Were there a page for Som Distilleries, I would be inclined to merge the content into that page. As there is not, I would go for Delete per nom. nf utvol (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://medium.com/@somindia/amazing-attributes-of-the-hunter-strongest-beer-in-india-d1680783c6dd

https://untappd.com/b/som-distilleries-and-breweries-hunter-super-strong-premium-beer/495061

it is one of highest selling beers in india

https://www.angelone.in/news/hunter-dominates-strong-beer-sales-in-delhi-for-may-2023 Baba199209 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://medium.com/@somindia/amazing-attributes-of-the-hunter-strongest-beer-in-india-d1680783c6dd

https://untappd.com/b/som-distilleries-and-breweries-hunter-super-strong-premium-beer/495061

it is one of highest selling beers in india

https://www.angelone.in/news/hunter-dominates-strong-beer-sales-in-delhi-for-may-2023

Baba199209 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those contribute to notability (a press release on sales, a self-published Medium article, and a user-generated Untappd entry). See WP:RS. nf utvol (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Holland (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, councillors at the borough level are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of significant reliable source coverage about their work that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact -- but not a single one of the 22 footnotes here represents proper third-party coverage about Claire Holland in media of record: 17 of them are primary sources that are not support for notability (e.g. the self-published websites of the council she serves on and/or her political party); three more completely fail to mention Claire Holland's name at all, and instead are here just to tangentially verify stray facts about other people; and the remaining two come from a minor community hyperlocal WordPress blog rather than a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy media outlet.
Simply existing as a borough councillor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the councillor from having to pass GNG on significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Holland isn't just a borough councillor. She's also (i) the head of the council, ie what in other cities with various administrative centres might be a mayor (ii) chair of the cross-council association for all of London, and (iii) a member of the executive committee for the UK Labour Party. The article appears to (now?) have sufficient reputable secondary sources. (There also appeared to be additional references to her in the Guardian and the Evening Standard).ash (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being head of the council still isn't a notability freebie. A head of a borough council, just the same as any other borough councillor, still has to pass WP:NPOL #2 on a lot more reliable source coverage about her work, supporting a lot more substance about the impact of her work, than this article is showing at all. Even mayors don't get instant notability freebies just for being mayors if they haven't been shown to pass NPOL #2, so why would a councillor get more leeway than a mayor does? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She's also the chair of the cross-council association for all of London, a member of the executive committee for the UK Labour Party, and a spokesman for the Local Government Association. ash (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Less notable people: Ros Jones, Brenda Dacres, Peter Taylor (mayor)

I think these Mayors are less notable than Cllr Claire Holland, who has national coverage from The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent and The Standard and represents all 32 London Boroughs at London Councils as well as being a member of the Nation Executive Committee of the The Labour Party, where key leadership decisions are made. Diogo Costa (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Holland isn't just a local councillor, she is Chair of London Councils which represents all local authorities in London including The City, she sits on the highest body of the national British Labour Party, the National Executive Committee. She was also invited by the British Deputy Prime Minister to be part of the Local Government Leaders' Council. She has been mentioned in newspapers and online articles from the Guardian and the BBC. Diogo Costa (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Holland, in her capacity has leader of the Council, has met with notable figures such as Prince William. This being made news into news outlets such as "The Independent" or "Yahoo News UK". GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Bearcat and the citations presented are not enough Yolandagonzales (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations of the UK's reputable sources such as The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent and The Standard isn't enough? Diogo Costa (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local politician, does not meet WP:NPOL. And meeting Prince William doesn't make her notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe she meets the following criteria: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Major London political figure, with significant press coverage. Diogo Costa (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~

Meets WP:NPOL Criteria – Holland’s role as Chair of London Councils extends beyond a typical local councillor. London Councils represents all 32 boroughs plus the City of London, influencing policies affecting millions. This is a significant leadership role at a regional level, aligning with WP:NPOL’s recognition of politicians who hold "substantial power at a national or sub-national level."

National Influence & Recognition – As a member of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee (NEC), she holds a position that helps shape the policies of one of the UK's two major political parties. This goes beyond local politics and directly influences national-level decision-making, reinforcing her notability.

Independent Reliable Coverage – Holland has been covered by respected national and international media outlets like The Guardian, BBC, The Independent, and Yahoo News UK. These sources are independent and reliable, providing evidence of sustained media attention, which satisfies Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG).

Invited by the Deputy Prime Minister – Her inclusion in the UK government’s Local Government Leaders’ Council highlights her political significance at a national level, demonstrating recognition by senior government figures beyond just the Labour Party.

Comparable Politicians Have Pages – Other council leaders with similar levels of influence have Wikipedia pages, such as Ros Jones, Rokhsana Fiaz, and Paul Dennett. Consistency in Wikipedia’s application of WP:NPOL would suggest that Holland’s role merits inclusion as well.

Public Engagement with National Figures – Her meetings with prominent figures, including Prince William, being reported in major news outlets, further indicate that she has a public profile beyond her borough.

Clare Holland is not just a local politician but a significant political figure with influence across London and within the national Labour Party. Her leadership role, media presence, and recognition by high-level government officials meet Wikipedia’s criteria for notability, making her page well-justified. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Duplicate !vote stricken. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I trust if you're going to delete Holland, you'll also delete Ros Jones, Brenda Dacres, Chris Cooke, Rokhsana Fiaz, Paul Dennett, and Peter Taylor too? ash (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While "Being head of the council still isn't a notability freebie" is a reasonable opinion to hold, it doesn't follow that the article must be deleted; indeed WP:INVALIDBIO suggests redirecting as an option - although that talks about relationships with people, I don't see why it can't also hold for relationships with organisations and political bodies. Considering redirecting as an alternative to deletion, there are multiple possible targets, including primarily London Councils and National Executive Committee (Labour Party). Since there's no preferred redirect target, it implies the article should be kept as a standalone entry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow responses to Ritchie333's argument/suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Kilani

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

Declined prod. Source was added https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-liberian-runner-sh/166592209/ ~~which doesn't appear to name this person~~. Lacking SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Jordan. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he exists [2]. That's about the extent of what I find, there are three other sources in Gnewspapers that just give race results. We don't have enough to meet GNG Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Positively fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Added source is expressly not about him. I know that a certain user will come around here to claim that it is, but it is not. Kilani had unusually slow PBs per Olympedia, literal minutes behind the world elite, so no reason to believe that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES either - which a certain user will arrive to claim as well. Geschichte (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on below provided sources. See collapsed for previous rationale.

Extended content

Keep with great respect to the above !voters' views and contributions, this is only a disagreement about policy. I do believe in using WP:NEXIST very sparingly, meaning I don't think it applies to 99%+ of articles on-wiki. But the simple fact is that that Kilani is a clear case where it applies:
1. . Is there enough WP:V content on Kilani to construct a stub? Yes, the article as written only consists of verified content from WP:RS. So the only issue is notability, not verifiability.
2. . Has Kilani done something that would indicate coverage exists? Yes, Kilani was the best long-distance track runner from his country of millions of people in the 1970s, as evidenced by the fact that he was the only such Jordanian athlete to qualify for the 1984 Olympics. Standards of achievement for athletics have always been specific to regions and sub-groups and not only universal. Of course a universal standard also exists, but for the same reason Sherman Guity is notable despite "pedestrian" sprint times, what matters is not whether Kilani did or WP:DIDNOTWIN but whether he was notable for his accomplishments in a large enough sub-group.
3. . Have we searched relevant archives? Do we even have access to them? This is a resounding no. We know that newspapers and periodicals were widespread in Jordan at the time. But where are the archives? A good start would be searching under the subject's native name Arabic: باسل كيلاني. Once we have those archives, it shouldn't take much, we'd expect coverage from the Olympics to exist on the first sports or news page on the day of Kilani's competitions. But we don't.

Lastly I'll just say that there is a wording issue in the nominating statement, of course "which doesn't appear to name this person" is incorrect because the subject is mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Yes, it's only a mention, meaning it serves to fulfill WP:V but not WP:N – hence why NEXIST is necessary here. --Habst (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we still have no sources, "Trust me some exist" isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, I have great respect for your edits, but I think you are falling trap to a common misconception about Wikipedia P&G – yes, NEXISTS can be invoked without a specific URL or page number of a citation, and there is some responsibility to search for sources before deletion even if they aren't readily available online. See the closing admin comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Maher Abbas: ... I'm not typically impressed by the "there must be sources" genre of argument, BeanieFan11's is unusually solid: it is true that not a single participant has reported searching Lebanese newspapers (where we'd expect to find the most coverage) and finding nothing. Those points all also apply to this AfD.

A lot of people think that if you look for sources online and can't find any, that's sufficient grounds to delete an article. And in 99% of cases that may be true, but Wikipedia P&G are more nuanced than that. --Habst (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionist, but without proper sourcing, we can't presume anything. This individual is most certainly notable, but we have nothing to prove that notability. The best source for media in that part of the world that we can access would be the BnF Gallica, simply for the shared language, [3] but there are no sources to be found. A Lebanese athlete would get some mention in the Francophone press if they were this notable, but there isn't any. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas was Lebanese but Kilani (this AfD subject) is Jordanian, so I don't think a French newspaper would suffice. List of newspapers in Jordan would be a good start – those in the table that would have existed during Kilani's prime would be The Jordan Times, Al Liwaa, Al Ra'i, and Ad-Dustour. To my knowledge, although we know that they existed in the 80s, none have searchable archives from that time, meaning we would need to do some digging like finding old issues. --Habst (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment striked out text, but regardless the added source is a single mention and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage here. I get a very choppy translation that says something like:

Basil Al-Kilani, the athlete
1 The unknown who did not participate in the tournament A year ago, he did not have a share 7 0 of the competitions that 0 .. Igham since a year for the national electors after he insisted on continuing training. With determination and deliberation .. until he surprised everyone and the champions

The previous one on the track, so Khalil

And Ham to the constellation in the 00.0 km race And the situation worsened with him, so he finished third, and I think Some people thought it was a stroke of luck, but he confirmed 0 The second day of the tournament 3 His ability to follow 0 The champions in the 101 km race, and he almost 3 won it if it were not for his lack of resourcefulness and experience He finished second and is now developing
5 An organized development.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also get from this:

Student Basil Kilani: One of the champions of the cross-country race
What are the impressions that.
Bear about the sports movement inside the college
He said at the beginning of the year there was no extra interest in athletes and the dean of the college promised that there were privileges for athletes and that they would be exempted from some of the fees or reduced, but one day we were surprised by the dean’s registrar taking us out of the classes and demanding that we pay the full fee.
There was one teacher in the college, which was not enough to train the teams, but finally the college received two sports coaches who led the teams to victory and the college director became the first supporter of sports and athletes

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then Sawt Alshaab has a decent article discussing him (and some other Jordan 1984 Olympians) here (Google is not good at translating this stuff...):

In response to what was reported by sports circles and newspapers about our athletics team that represented Jordan in the Los Angeles Olympics, I would like to present a clearer and more detailed picture of this drowned(?) person ... Basil Kilani competed in the 1000[0]m race. He achieved Al-Kilani set a new Jordanian record in the 30.42 1000[0]m race, completing the distance in 30 minutes, thus breaking his previous record of 32.02 minutes by one minute and twenty seconds.
An hour. He came in fifteenth place with a time of 19/2014 and there are many like him ... This is an achievement in a short period of time that is almost unexpected. He participated in the 5000m race, which started at a speed higher than what is required for our player, and he covered the first kilometer in 2.47 minutes and the second kilometer in 2.44 minutes, which is close to his maximum speed time, which was a technical mistake for the player, and thus he lost his record achieved in Germany by 15 seconds.
...
However, we must take into consideration all aspects of the shortage in numbers and capabilities, from technical and other aspects, so that we can achieve better accomplishments in the future...

huge blockquote redacted somewhat by asilvering (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11, please don't drop such huge blockquotes onto Wikipedia, even in an AfD, for copyvio reasons. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just trying to allow others to be able to read the text, which is entirely in another language, to show its extent for sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the coverage we have is just enough for GNG/NBASIC given the circumstances; I feel like if we did better searches we'd find more coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per BeanieFan11 Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Let give time for interested editors by draftifying the page and so they may show the subject's notability with additional references through time.Instant History (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. He also fails WP:GNG. I don't think the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument holds up either - if they WP:EXIST, then someone should find them and update the article accordingly.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this not sigcov? Also, the NEXIST argument is that no one has looked at Jordanian newspaper archives, only the very limited archive.org collection. I.e. a large number of the newspapers of the time that are likely to have covered him are inaccessible to us. Regardless of that though, I think what's been presented is enough to build an WP:NBASIC-compliant article... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that per WP:NEXIST, the onus of proof of the existence of sources rests on those claiming it exists: once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the new coverage by User:BeanieFan11, an NEXIST argument isn't necessary any more, so I'll strike mine and change to Keep on these merits. I agree that the info we have now is enough for a BASIC-compliant article. --Habst (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highest Village in Lebanon

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

Completely unsourced article. No other examples of articles like this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, Middle East, and Lebanon. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Factoriangular number

AfDs for this article:

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

This is apparently the same page as an article of the same title that was deleted in 2017. It seems that the main difference with the deleted version is that citations to predatory journals have been added. This is not sufficient to insure WP:notability, and the reasons for the first deletion remain all valid. D.Lazard (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the author of this article. I've added some more recent sources just now. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous article had five sources all published in bad journals (on Beall's list). The current article [4] has nine sources, of which six appear to be published in bad journals (not indexed in MathSciNet). The three exceptions are Rayaguru, Ruiz (actually should be Gomez Ruiz), and Luca "Pell Factoriangular Numbers". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xandra Pohl

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

Subject does not meet basic criteria for WP:N; extremely minor celebrity with no significant contribution to their field. References include subject’s own social media accounts that do not meet WP:RS. Subject has not won critical attention for their work or been honored with any significant industry awards. Volcom95 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (Article creator) She meets the basic criteria for notability through sources like this solid Cincinnati Enquirer profile. None of the nominator's reasons are based in deletion policy. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single article does not meet the definition of "significant coverage" as detailed in WP:GNG. Volcom95 (talk) Volcom95 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hence "sources like". Also not what sigcov means. Plenty of other solid articles including E! profile and a chunk of this Rolling Stone piece ("does not need to be the main topic of the source material"), Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author had reliable sources in the article, but given the fact that there are other, even more reliable sources out there on the subject, it seems to me that this is a case of an article simply needing to be further developed. I will spend some time tomorrow on strengthening it. This article was hastily nominated by a user who resorted to false accusations & threats against users who were doing their due diligence in order to provide a genuine opinion about whether or not the article should remain on Wikipedia. It is clear that the subject has satisfied the notability requirement. None of the nominators reasons for nominating are valid.

Brickto (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - She made the Forbes 30 under 30 list for music. That is no small feat. —— Comment: Reason Keep to Strong Keep change: nominator isn’t paying enough attention to the things they are arguing, and likely didn’t attempt to research the subject before initiating an AfD.

Brickto (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you and user:Hameltion both have edits on the Peter Mangione article? Seems like an odd coincidence. Care to explain here or should I just file a WP:SPI?? Volcom95 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volcom95 I am switching my vote to Strong Keep, because clearly the nominator isn’t observant enough to notice that I edited the Peter Mangione article because I nominated it for deletion, and instead resorts to threats and accusing me and the author of sockpuppetry. Brickto (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is also not a thing we use to recognize notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P5, Wikipedia has no firm rules. A selection by Forbes, a reliable and prestigious outlet, for their 30 under 30 list is notable. On top of that, the subject is mentioned plenty in other reliable sources as more than just a passing mention. Did anyone bother to search the woman up or are you just trying to get this persons article deleted for no reason? Brickto (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it shows some notability, but it's not a RS alone. I still don't see enough RS. I looked below for sourcing as explained, please read my comments further down. Why would I want to delete this for no reason? I have better things to do with my time than waste it on wikipedia for no reason; I'm here with a purpose. My comment below says she might be notable in the future, we just don't have enough at this time to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON, the Cincinnati Inquirer piece is fine. The Sports Illustrated seems to be from the Swimsuit edition of the website, I'm wondering if it's as notable as the main SI site. We'd need a few more RS to cover this person before we could consider an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, coverage is about a swimsuit line, Dancing with the Stars and her relationships. They could help fill in an article, but aren't indications of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SI piece is reliable but not really independent, but the other sources I linked above are sound. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Are you aware that the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated is one of the most prestigious covers that a model can be featured on? Because it seems like you think that is somehow less notable in some way. On the contrary, it makes it more notable. She was named the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Rookie of 2024 for her debut in the 60th Anniversary Edition of the swimsuit issue. 60 years that specific issue of the magazine has been being printed.

Regardless of where you stand on the topic, there is no overstating the importance and prestige that’s associated with being featured as the cover model for Sports Illustrated’s annual swimsuit edition. Indeed, there are magazines and websites dedicated to covering the topic. What began as a short photo spread featuring women in bathing suits in the early 1960s has since grown into one of the most prestigious fashion shoots in the world today, one that has is seen as THE fashion issue which the world’s top models and celebrities turn to for beachwear.
- AS USA
Brickto (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the swimsuit edition is, this appears to be a "lifestyle" website, feels more promotional. The website is actually titles SI Lifestyle, of which this swimsuit tab seems to be a small section at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So we have a Cincinnati Inquirer article, a 30 under 30 list and an SI swimsuit article, that's what we're using for notability? These are hardly enough. We usually need three decent sources for AfD; I've count these as maybe 1 1/2 sources. The Under 30 list is rather short. The SI swimsuit thing is iffy per the discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b

Cincinnati Enquirer, People, New York Post, Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated, The US Sun, Page Six, Forbes, Her Campus, E!, OutKick, MSN, TMZ, TheWrap, Times of India, WLWT, EssentiallySports

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/music/2025/02/11/xandra-cincinnati-kid-now-taking-over-dj-industry/77260013007/

https://www.hercampus.com/culture/xandra-pohl-tiktok-being-comfortable-alone-interview/

https://www.forbes.com/profile/xandra-pohl/

https://www.eonline.com/news/1407776/dancing-with-the-stars-danny-amendola-sets-record-straight-on-xandra-pohl-dating-rumors

https://www.eonline.com/news/1407492/xandra-pohl-fuels-danny-amendola-dating-rumors-at-dancing-with-the-stars-taping

https://www.outkick.com/culture/si-swimsuit-model-xandra-pohl-still-supports-o-3-bengals-jj-squat-ladies

https://www.outkick.com/culture/xandra-pohl-comes-out-jungle-2025-si-swimsuit-issue-clay-has-flu-275-gallon-firebox

https://people.com/all-about-danny-amendola-xandra-pohl-relationship-8714665

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/recaps/are-danny-amendola-and-xandra-pohl-dating-a-dwts-backstage-video-spills-the-tea/ar-AA1uTaAV

https://amp.tmz.com/2024/09/18/xandra-pohl-supports-danny-amendola-dwts/

https://www.thewrap.com/xandra-fandom-new-york-comic-con-party/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2024/12/03/forbes-announces-30-under-30-class-of-2025-spotlighting-young-entrepreneurs-and-innovators-who-are-disrupting-industries-and-making-an-impact-globally/

https://lifestyle.si.com/fashion-beauty/our-favorite-pieces-from-xandra-pohl-s-new-jewelry-collab-with-electric-picks-01j18r6b77j7

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/nfl/danny-amendola-shuts-down-dating-rumors-no-xandra-is-a-great-friend-of-mine/amp_articleshow/113773972.cms

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/tiktok-influencer-dj-1235133233/

https://www.wlwt.com/article/forbes-30-under-30-list-xandra-cincinnati/63084262

https://www.essentiallysports.com/nfl-active-news-has-louis-rees-zammit-broken-up-with-girlfriend-xandra-pohl-si-models-danny-amendola-move-sparks-speculation/

https://lifestyle.si.com/news/xandra-pohl-makes-her-debut-in-the-60th-anniversary-issue-of-si-swimsuit-01hw5kjxjbmc

https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/sports/dave-portnoy-throws-fuel-on-xandra-pohl-danny-amendola-dating-rumors/

https://nypost.com/2024/05/17/sports/si-swimsuit-model-xandra-pohl-stirs-dating-buzz-with-chiefs-player-after-public-breakup/

https://www.the-sun.com/sport/11652416/xandra-pohl-sports-illustrated-model-olivia-dunne-danny-amendola/

https://people.com/tiktoker-xandra-pohl-named-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-2024-rookie-see-the-debut-photos-8638269

https://pagesix.com/video/model-and-dj-alexandra-pohl-answers-burning-questions-in-confession-cube/
I don’t know about your love life, but I’d imagine it’s not the topic of any articles at the New York Post. If you can’t be bothered to even Google someone, why are you taking the time to argue for the deletion of their article? That’s careless & destructive to the encyclopedia. Hameltion has shown on other AfD discussions regarding articles that they have written that they are more than willing to admit when the nomination has merit. Because they are a good editor & they care about the encyclopedia. That being said, their speedy keep vote was 100% valid, and this nomination is a joke. The nominator is threatening people in the discussion, and the only other delete vote can’t take the time to Google the subject. Do better. Brickto (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think what we have ourselves here is a perfect example of a situation where a Wikipedia article is not a commodity but rather a necessity. If people are having trouble finding these, very obviously notable and prestigious, articles about the subject — then that is where Wikipedia comes in and consolidates them. This makes the information much more accessible to the general public, and it is the very reason this website was started in the first place.
Brickto (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brickto, I know you mean to help, but no need to call others names even if their arguments are flawed. Assuming good faith always helps. Also, a big wall of links of varying quality is not the most effective way to demonstrate notability. I'll just point Oaktree b again to the three sources I linked earlier (Inquirer, E!, and Rolling Stone). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone is a photo caption as barely two paragraphs about Pohl. E isn't much better. You need extensive coverage in reliable sources, not trivial coverage is a few articles. We don't have enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hameltion I called nobody any name. So I’d appreciate you striking that. Frankly, you don’t fight hard enough for your articles. This subject actually is well beyond what is considered notable by Wikipedia’s standards. Also, Oaktree b doesn’t need to be shown anything. They are capable of researching the subject themselves (take a look at the top of every AfD as it instructs you to do so) which they refuse to do. The Post isn’t notable by whose standards? Is this because they recently posted about how Wikipedia has a censorship problem. Well case in point. Good luck with the AfD. The people who behave like the nominative and oak are the people that killed this project. Don’t try to appease people who have problems with doing what they are supposed to, or the bare minimum at that. Be well. Brickto (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please review our list of reliable sources [5]. The NY Post has been deems not reliable since around 2020. I'm asking you to please review the list before throwing around accusations. Please and thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun and the Post don't prove notability and aren't RS (reliable sources). Frankly, I'm not going through a list that long if you can't provide us with examples that are what we qualify as reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b If you can’t take the time to click some links, then don’t take the time to write out a response. Your passive aggressive behavior drives editors away and no I am not going to assume good faith when someone isn’t acting in good faith to begin with. You have a job to do, stop making everyone do it for you. WP:NEXIST: “Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.” The burden of proof is on you. The guidelines don’t say “nominate baselessly and then make the author desperately try to get you to take a look at sources” You aren’t supposed to nominate or participate in AfD until you have already conducted a thorough search. Which you have absolutely not. You need to go do that and then come back and discuss. Brickto (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've said more than enough in this discussion and I'm tired of arguing about the issues. I have nothing further to add. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per these two sources yahoo news and EDM.com, the subject has three nominations in the 2025 Electronic Dance Music Awards. That meets WP:MUSICBIO#8, demonstrating significant contribution in her field. I'll have a look at further sourcing when I get time. ResonantDis_tortion 22:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding significant sourcing beyond those referenced above - but with 3 nominations for a notable award, coupled with the Cincinnati and SI coverage, there's just enough to (a) show compliance with WP:MUSICBIO and (b) build an article, so leaning towards Keep. ResonantDis_tortion 10:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this nomination does not qualify for a "Speedy keep" per WP:SK. Also note that personal attacks against participants will not help your case here, and prefacing your vote with "Strong" as retribution to someone else's view suggests you're treating this as a competition rather than as a discussion. Relisting to obtain another level-headed, neutral source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural Close‎. The article was speedy deleted as WP:G2 (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Úàâdia

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

Mason7512 (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2027 Asansol Municipal Corporation election

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

Lacks Notability. TOOSOON. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Martins

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

Player who only acted in regional leagues in Brazil and in the second division of Romania [6].Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of vice presidents of the United States

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. The 2023 Afd keep rationales are unconvincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for Bad English!

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

Appears to not be a notable album, presumably redirect to Mad Show Boys. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hinkler Hall of Aviation

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

a weak article, lacking basic criteria of significance, and supported only by press releases and weak references Loewstisch (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Aviation, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron bird (aviation)

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

lack sufficient notability and reliable sources Loewstisch (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bedia (caste)

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

The current articulation of this article presents multiple issues related to the reliability and verifiability of web sources, as outlined in such problematic insertion WP:Problem. A significant concern is the reliance on sources that fail to meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, often resurfacing conspicuous site mapping from government portals suchlike Jarkhandculture.gov.in without proper attribution or independent supplemental pro-analysis. This raises concerns about original research and potential WP:SYNTH violations. Sailedwarrior (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Sailedwarrior (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support:without any impressment most of this delusional source are not neutrally enduring under workable conditions WP:DUE but unjustifiably diverging the site mapping of Jarkhandcutlure.gov.in without any contradiction [7] 2409:40D6:105:2C18:3C85:5B09:BC19:CE8C (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietty (drag queen)

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

Cannot find enough in-depth, non-trivial coverage for this person to meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, California, and Washington. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball. There's a reason almost every single RuPaul's Drag Race contestant has an entry. That's because being cast on the show essentially guarantees notability per WP:ENTERTAINER; in addition to appearing on the series, participants are cast on the independently notable RuPaul's Drag Race: Untucked, appear on the notable series Whatcha Packin' and Hey Qween!, and participate in notable events and tours such as RuPaul's DragCon LA and Werq the World. Article improvement > article deletion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.

She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.

The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Arrietty page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary - here Zanahary if you care so much about GNG how about you go try to delete an article that actually does not meet GNG and has very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)— 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You got me. I'm a Malagasy sky deity jealous that my followers have dwindled to below the followers of this fabulous drag performer. I projected my consciousness into a field of clay to construct a golem that is now serving my divinity through Wikipedia.

Anyways, WP:CRYSTAL; WP:TOOSOON. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER

thank you, next. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the show is still in competition, this nomination is a few days premature. Let's see what happens this weekend. Bearian (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We wait for notability, not for persistent appearance of lack of notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As of Episode 9, he is in the top 7, so far. I'm still waiting for Episode 10, when more contestants shall be eliminated. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Seattle Times is the only decent source about this person. Rest are about everyone on the show, or the person responding to "nasty" things others have said. Probably TOOSOON, outside of the show, there doesn't seem to be notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stor-Age

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

As a for-profit company this needs to meet WP:NCORP rather than GNG, and while there are lots of passing mentions and press releases, I'm unable to find substantive intellectually independent sources. There is also a history of UPE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why some see insufficient coverage - 3 dozen references, and the ones I checked did not reveal themselves as press release based. It's true that the info is generally pretty much "company did this, company did that" but for a company of this category there isn't much more to say. Lamona (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mailfence

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

Does not seem to meet the required depth for WP:NCORP. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A dedicated TechRadar review plus coverage in Lifewire, PCMag, and Makeuseof should be enough to demonstrate notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the TechRadar article, that one is dedicated to Mailfence. Not really convinced about the others where it is a small part of an overview. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources provided above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After putting in a decent amount of time searching for sources and cleaning up the article, I can't say that I see this as meeting the notability requirements of WP:NCORP, particularly with reference to WP:ORGCRITE. While the TechRadar review goes a small way to establishing notability, the balance of available sources aren't as convincing (either being from self-published blog posts or questionably reliable/independent listicles). KwanFlakes (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charu Chandra Bandyopadhyay

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

Insufficient Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Insufficient source is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilner v. NSA

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not WP:LASTING. Not a significant law suit/court case in any way, which the Supreme Court of the United States indicated by denying its writ of certiorari. [8] Longhornsg (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not !voting yet, but noting that I've just corrected one of the three sources used, because it was misattributed -- it's the group that filed the case, not a third party. There's only one third-party source here, and it's a mere two paragraphs, so that doesn't say much for the notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. A Google Books search brings up a fair number of hits, but this seem mention-y. Still, there might be something there. BD2412 T 16:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. I added one source to the page, which also has about two paragraphs on the case. I would still be on the fence for notability, but I am wondering if this can be merged somewhere. BD2412 T 01:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Two cents: this and Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush could probably both be merged into NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007) (under Legal Issues heading). I don't think either case is particularly noteworthy on its own. LegalSkeptic (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't hate the merge idea for both either Longhornsg (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I was kind of thinking that this one could be merged to Glomar response. BD2412 T 03:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, but not the list of red linked lawyers. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have an argument to draft and several different Merge target articles proposed so no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Doesn't seem to be sustained in-depth coverage. I think the NSA article is a better option than Glomar response. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Boudriot

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

Lacking in real sources for WP:BIO, and no reviews that I can find for his book, Le vaisseau de 74 canons, for WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Architecture, Archaeology, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : The Fr Wiki article is only a list of national catalogue listings used a sourcing and a list of books. The sourcing is even worse than what's here... I can only find this review of one of his books [9]. I don't see enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This review in the Naval War College journal (?, I'm not sure if it's a magazine or a formal academic jouranl) seems to help this person pass AUTHOR [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linas Garsys

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

This artist doesn't seem notable outside of, maybe, passing mentions in articles about other topics. CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United States of America. CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Thailand, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From what I understand, the artist gained notoriety as a result of a controversy involving the (DEI) policies of the current Trump administration. It is not enough for WP:GNG, and the episode is not even included in the First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency# Diversity, equity, and inclusion. If something more substantial comes up in the discussion, I'll change my vote. Svartner (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of significant coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem notable and their involvement in a single event doesn't seem to change that. Boredintheevening (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Zagorová discography

AfDs for this article:

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

This had been successfully nominated for deletion in 2011, but never was deleted. The article should be merged into the article on the singer because it cites no RS and is undue. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, and Czech Republic. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to the logs it was deleted in 2011 but re-created in 2019. And the comment "it cites no RS" seems to not hold true either. Not only is there a source at the page, there is the Czech page with additional sources. So, before going into this further, what is the reason for deleting this page? C 679 11:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly redirect to the singer's article if "discography" is a likely search term. There really are no relaible sources on this page. The one footnote is to a directory listing for the singer's larger career and is not relevant for a list of every single one of her releases. The equivalent Czech WP article [11] is also dependent on sources that are either unreliable, or if they're reliable they are also about the singer and still do not support the all the items in this list. Regardless, she has a great number of releases over a long successful career, but presenting the list in this fashion possibly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and we could cite WP:READABILITY too. The singer's article has a helpful list of studio albums and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a long-standing tradition to split discographies into separate pages, see Category:Pop music discographies. And yes there are reliable sources. Also, all items are individually searchable and verifiable; it is an extremely popular singer in Czech lands. Take a random on: "Poslední šantán / Obraz smutný slečny". --Altenmann >talk 17:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LORAN-C transmitter Salwa

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

No sources on topic other than entries on lists of LORAN transmitters. Should be merged into comprehensive list of the antennas instead of having permanent one-sentence articles for each mast PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Military, and Saudi Arabia. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed, lacks independent notability. Mztourist (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a merge target? Or is the proposal to create a new article and merge this into it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Momversation

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

Non-notable web site / video series. This was PRODed in 2016 but it still has not improved since then. Natg 19 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Websites, United States of America, and California. Natg 19 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two sources at the time of writing, one of which is a blog and the other is from Adweek, which previous RSN's have determined to be generally reliable. Still, there is no evidence of reliable sustained coverage, so I lean delete per WP:SUSTAINED. Madeleine (talk) 03:28, 7 March 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 03:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ansuman Bhagat (Writer)

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

Repost of material previously salted at Ansuman Bhagat. Was tagged A7 and declined, then draftified and undone so WP:DRAFTOBJECT now applies and we need a AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined WP:A7 here because of a claim of significance, "Best Writer Award for the year 2022"; I should not have done so, as it seems that claim was not a credible one – the awarding institution is an online publish-on-demand company. The "books" listed in WorldCat are self-published through another such company, Authors Tree Publishing (incorrectly listed in Worldcat as "Author Tree Publishing"). I don't read Hindi, but can see no indication here of notability of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case this page was kept, kindly rename the page to Ansuman Bhagat. The current title includes an unnecessary disambiguation. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban society in China

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

This page remains an WP:ESSAY without WP:RS. Urbanization in China already covers the topic. Amigao (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has only two sources and is an essay. The topic is already covered by Urbanization in China. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 06:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Free Loan Society of New York

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

Fails WP:NORG. Redirect to Gemach as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has been covered widely and in-depth in such reliable and verifiable sources as this one from The New York Times, which will be added to the article. It's not clear what WP:BEFORE search was done by the nominator, but there were dozens of articles related to the organization that popped up in a simple search online. Alansohn (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of New Zealand Party

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

Fails GNG, there is no significant coverage of the group bar the New Zealand Herald article in the article. The rest of the coverage in the article is non-independent/trivial/routine reporting. Nothing I could find with a search for the party's name turned up any SIGCOV. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LJ Holden 09:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand#Parties that never held seats. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to that list it is 'limited to notable parties', so any party without an article would not be included. I don't have an issue if the criteria is changed for that list but currently it would exclude any article deleted/redirected at AfD from being included. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST: not all members of a class have to be notable per se. FWIW, the reliable source reporting about the party (eg Small parties battle election arithmetic (2005), Police investigating after flag burnt at Parliament (2010), Police on to anti-royals (2012)) is borderline, but not quite there in my mind for a GNG pass as only one piece has SIGCOV. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the selection criteria is for notable parties only, that criteria (or at least wording) would need to be changed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger (poem)

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

notability; doesn't warrant a seperate article. one of many promotional articles created by a blocked user. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GNG. Herinalian (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Jayanta Mahapatra, decent coverage in reliable sources ie [12], [13]. Described as "one of Mahapatra's most quoted early poems" here (p. 60). Still, would like one or two more sources to clearly establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jayanta Mahapatra.Lacks sources for standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more forthcoming opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 16:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get back on log, note TK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer note, I had closed as N/C since the further input was not forthcoming, but Eddie891 raised the potential of consensus on my Talk and I have relisted it for same. No objection to a reclose when folks feel it's settled. Star Mississippi 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jayanta Mahapatra. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Soumyapatra13 and Herinalian - pinging to see if y’all are ok with merging to the poet’s article as an alternative to deletion? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems Merge would be better. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Davidov

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

Highly questionable notability Amigao (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Louisiana, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms

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

Another piece of Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG, as these are just prison uniforms at a notable prison. We don't have an article about ADX Florence uniforms. There's no WP:SIGCOV on the prison uniforms themselves to establish notability. Only WP:PASSING. And the article is a collection of WP:SYNTH. WP:ARTICLEAGE or WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments for notability and thus keeping. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as utter trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. FWIW original creator indeffed. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The topic isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, but there should be at least a few sentences about the uniforms on the Guantanamo Bay article. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 04:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree that something about the uniforms is mergeable. There is no indication whatsoever that there is anything notable or WP:DUE about the uniforms. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not appropriate for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 08:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Guantanamo Bay detention camp. I am not sure yet if there is SIGCOV, though I did find "North Carolina firm supplies uniforms for war prisoners", and the book Dress Behind Bars: Prison Clothing as Criminality has several pages about the Guantanamo Bay orange jumpsuits [14]. There is some coverage of the use by Islamic State of orange jumpsuits for their prisoners, "a reference to the prison uniforms at Guantanamo Bay" [15] and here [16]. Stage performances have also used orange boiler-suits to represent Guantanamo Bay-style captivity, eg [17], page 24. The book Escape to Prison: Penal Tourism and the Pull of Punishment (page 76) [18] describes how Old Melbourne Gaol museum asks visitors to think about how Ned Kelly would be treated today, and show a photograph of him dressed in an orange boiler-suit ("think Guanatanamo Bay"). The quote in the article, that "that is the image that is being left with people all around the world, that everybody in Guantanamo is wearing an orange jump suit", does fit with these sources. Some more about these issues could be added to the article. The Guantanamo Bay article is already long, so it would probably be better to keep this article separate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. I only found two unsourced, potentially contentious clauses in this article, which can be solved with ordinary edit requests or excision. The main article is too long. Lots of trivial stuff ends up in WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sentence explaining the "compliant" and "non-compliant" uniforms is about all you need to know, the rest appears to be fluff and many photos. I really don't even see the point of a merge, prisoners wear uniforms in prison. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radya Caldaya

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

WP:N, no significant coverage in reliable sources either in Assyrian, Arabic, or English. Article has barely seen substantial edits since its creation in 2007. Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this magazine in only a handful of sources. Thus, it should be deleted unless significant coverage is found. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]