User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The page is now updated at User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention. Please change links accordingly. You can still see the table below.

Below are the top 25

AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot
roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 16:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC).

AfD Time to close Votes Size (bytes) Relists Score
Asian American Movement and Black Power 22 days ago 1 6613 0 1925.62
Chen Zhehan 21 days ago 1 3884 0 1864.78
Cascades Shopping Centre 22 days ago 3 6139 0 1813.8
National Roofing Contractors Association 21 days ago 2 5411 0 1779.55
J.S.S. Academy of Technical Education, Noida 19 days ago 1 3847 0 1772.55
Frank Abbott (footballer) 19 days ago 2 4416 0 1611.62
Forced orgasm (2nd nomination) 19 days ago 3 11993 0 1580.56
ElgooG (3rd nomination) 17 days ago 2 6718 0 1501.58
DXET-TV (2nd nomination) 17 days ago 3 8099 0 1431.85
Moujhed Fahid Khalifa 14 days ago 1 7476 0 1381.53
Riaan Manser 14 days ago 1 14217 0 1361.65
Hakan Akbas 13 days ago 1 4595 0 1333.23
Lip Service (2000 film) 15 days ago 2 16638 0 1329.04
Meyzenq 15 days ago 3 7743 0 1299.71
Oyayubihime (film) 13 days ago 1 4665 0 1274.36
Jayshree Misra Tripathi 15 days ago 3 4563 0 1273.84
Sudip Pandey (2nd nomination) 15 days ago 3 5711 0 1253.74
Abhimanyu Shammi Thilakan 14 days ago 3 3922 0 1243.71
Past Sharks squads 12 days ago 1 3657 0 1225.02
Huayi Publishing House 13 days ago 2 7058 0 1212.28
List of Belgian provinces by life expectancy 14 days ago 4 5813 0 1185.33
Gustavinho em o Enigma da Esfinge 14 days ago 4 7941 0 1162.08
Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party (2nd nomination) 12 days ago 2 7406 0 1136.58
Lawley Pharmaceuticals 14 days ago 4 5416 0 1126.03
Treasure Guards 12 days ago 3 4124 0 1109.13
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. Given this is a copy of the text at

WP:AFC when it is ready for the mainspace. This is not meant to be a punishment or to bite newcomers, but the consensus is that this should be done properly and only when the article is ready. Malinaccier (talk
) 20:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Asian American Movement and Black Power

Asian American Movement and Black Power (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)

Term paper redundant with Asian American movement and Black power movement. Gjs238 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Continuing revisions with assistance

Hi all, I'm the librarian supporting the students editing this page, and have consulted with them to make additional edits. Additional feedback will of course be appreciated! AnitaConchita (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Gjs238 (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
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.

Chen Zhehan

– (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to support notability Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk
) 01:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
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 no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Cascades Shopping Centre

Cascades Shopping Centre (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 significant in-depth coverage outside of local media. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Merge with Portsmouth. Other articles about shopping malls give details such as what movies they've appeared in, what historical registries they're on... According to this article, the Cascades Shopping Centre is just a shopping center. Merge with no prejudice against re-creation if sourcing establishing independent notability can be found. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not a great article, in need of editing, sourcing and removal of non-encyclopaedic comments, but the subject seems clearly notable enough for inclusion. I also note that the proposer states No significant in-depth coverage outside of local media, which suggests that there is significant in-depth coverage in local media. Unless there is something in our notability guidelines that excludes local media, and I certainly cannot find anything, then this statements seems to contradict the proposal. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    Comment I certainly don't claim to be an expert and am not sure if it applies here, but
    WP:AUD does exclude local media. Aŭstriano (talk
    ) 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    That is part of
    WP:NGEO. Peter James (talk
    ) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm browsing the
    Portsmouth Evening News, which is more "regional" than "local" in nature. I will investigate fully when I get home tonight. The Cascades is a prominent shopping centre, comparable to those listed in the navbox at the bottom of the article; I feel continued coverage "should" be findable – quite probably in Portsmouth Reference Library, which I have used before. I will follow up on this later. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)
    14:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as right now there is no consensus and we have a variety of outcomes proposed: Deletion, Merger and Keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

National Roofing Contractors Association

National Roofing Contractors Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting

WP:ORG. LibStar (talk
) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit
14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's hope we get some more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nom in toto, and assuming good faith, if the only resources editor's including User:LeapTorchGear could find are primary in nature, then it is unlikely that there is any true value to keeping the page up. I would also raise that even if it suddenly was mentioned extensively in secondary sources, it still wouldn't be of much value to a Wikipedia reader. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
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.

J.S.S. Academy of Technical Education, Noida

– (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot be salvaged with a merge. Lacks any coverage by third party outlets. Heavily relies on primary sources. Huge chunks are so simply copy pasted Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the
    WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit
    23:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allblessed (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep would appear as if there is a single source independent of the subject, and with the more abundant primary, I think the article could be kept. Work needs to be done on it though. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Frank Abbott (footballer)

– (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't have enough reliable / significant sources. They are mainly stat pages and one book mention. Darkm777 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep Satisfies GNG with new sources. Jevansen (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely sources out there on from various newspapers available Trove like this with Abbotts involvement in play during a game. There are many more that look like they hold information about him. Yes I know there were a couple of Abbott's that have played in that era it takes a few moments to distinguish which one. He still played in one of the premier leagues in Australia at the time, the clubs history has entwined with a current AFL team. Gnangarra 10:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Forced orgasm

AfDs for this article:
Forced orgasm (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)

Does not seem to be notable. Kinkly looks like a healthline-like site, i.e. unreliable. The Guardian article doesn't mention this and isn't even about it. A search on google scholar shows only passing mentions and unreliable sources. A search on google news does not bring up significant reliable coverage either. KnowDeath (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The previous discussion on this contains no convincing arguments in favour of keeping.
WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not merely mentioning that this practice exists. This is a mini-instruction guideline with explicit instructions and images of how to do this. — Maile (talk
) 02:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep The topic of the article is important and noteworthy from a sexual, medical and perhaps historical point of view. Although the article basically does not refer to this content well, a Google Books search can list many sources. However, unsourced content and unhelpful images should be removed.
    Edard Socceryg (talk
    ) 00:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

    The topic of the article is important and noteworthy from a sexual, medical and perhaps historical point of view

    How? I couldn't find anything that corroborates this and you haven't provided anything either.

    a Google Books search can list many sources

    All the books I can see are erotica or written by somebody who isn't an academic expert. KnowDeath (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete - this is a fairly minor topic within BDSM and kink. Most of this short article is unsourced and the sources available look poor, giving little likelihood of improvement in the future. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep I had thought deletion was the answer, but my own searches convinced me otherwise.[1][2][3][4]

    References

    1. doi:10.1007/s10508-021-02156-9
      .
    2. doi:10.1177/08862605211073109
      .
    3. doi:10.1080/19419899.2022.2060130
      .
    4. doi:10.1016/j.jcfm.2003.10.008
      .
    Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    These are about a different topic, they are not about the BDSM activity. KnowDeath (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete. The topic of this article ("forced orgasms" as a kink or unconventional consensual sexual practice) appears to be unrelated to what Goldsztajn's sources say, which are about orgasms that are "forced" in the context of conventional (not kinky) sex, or in the context of nonconsensual sex (i.e. rape). I can't see anything in the article that could be substantiated by these sources, at least judging by their abstracts. The article needs deletion as unverifiable or at least not notable on the basis of currently produced sources. Goldsztajn's sources could be used in the article about orgasm instead. Sandstein 18:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    There are two different topics that are covered by this subject - coerced, non-consenual sexual activity which produces an orgasm and consensual, play sexual activity that mimics coercion and produces an orgasm. I've already provided sourcing on the former, there is sourcing on the latter.[1][2][3][4]

    References

    1. doi:10.1111/jsm.12835
      . There are several ways through which BDSM practices can divert distress away from concerns about sexual functioning, namely an emphasis on practices that require a good display of nongenital technical skills (e.g., flogging, bondage, needle play) and that produce sexual responses on their partners, or contexts where coitus is not even an option, and/or where typical anxiogenic markers of sexual function (such as not having an erection) are positively valued and even fundamental to the role play (e.g., male chastity belts, Cock and Ball Torture [CBT], cock humiliation, forced orgasm)
    2. doi:10.31031/FSAR.2019.05.000608
      .
    3. ISBN 9780807020227
      .
    4. doi:10.13131/2611-657X.whatever.v4i1.122
      . Il suo agire sottomettendosi alle pratiche che le vengono imposte (forced orgasms; double penetration; face-slapping; spanking e bukkake) è in grado di condizionare il contesto e di caratterizzare l'intera scena: l'at-tenzione del pubblico, sia quello performante che quello a cui è rivolto il prodotto finale, è incentrata su di lei.
    FWIW, I disagree with the characterisation "nonconsensual sex (i.e. rape)", nonconsensual sex is synonymous with sexual assault, rather than rape. Rape is a relic of criminal law that for far too long lawfully excused sexual assault where penetration could not be proven. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    This article is (ostensibly) about the second topic, not the first. The sources cited above do not persuade me - to the extent I can access them, they merely mention "forced orgasms" among several other sexual practices, rather than describe what they are. This is not the sort of in-depth coverage we need to write a reliable article and to make the topic notable. Sandstein 18:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Sandstein, I would not consider this
    significant coverage, they are just mentions of the term. Additionally, Arielle Greenberg does not seem to be an academic expert in sexology or psychology; and the publisher of the book, Beacon Press, is literally blacklisted on Wikipedia. KnowDeath (talk
    ) 00:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    Actually, the blacklisting might not be relevant. KnowDeath (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    AssanEcho (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

    ElgooG

    AfDs for this article:
    ElgooG (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 website. The lead lists the definition of a term like a disambiguation page but then all headings list possible meanings. Is this meant to be a page about elgoog.im or Google mirrors? Delete for lack of notability (the added template suggests that the page is about elgoog.im). thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment There's definitely history for this Google mirror. I know that's an argument to avoid but for something more than 20 years ago with 2 previous AfDs, let's see if any substance holds for today. I don't agree with the weird disambiguation because it's explaining the same website. For instance, a random look into the past edits shows that: Special:Permalink/199047655. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment There is very little information to expand upon compared to the average Wikipedia article. Other sites with similar names were probably added over time and appear to be different sites from the original. Vacosea (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep I believe this website's usage for bypassing Internet censorship in China makes it noteworthy.
    2001:8003:1C02:E900:64EC:6E8C:5887:A475 (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Is there sufficient coverage and notability for a standalone article though? Vacosea (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    I believe so. 2001:8003:1C02:E900:2D39:9F43:F796:1073 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: what sources
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep How is a not non notable website? The ElgooG is a notable website that's have a easter egg by Google or not. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: for policy-based input please
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep: The New Scientist article is fine (now in the article), also have this [1] discussing how it was used to avoid censorship. Should be enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
      Also discussed here [2] and [3] Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

    DXET-TV

    AfDs for this article:
    DXET-TV (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)

    Same rationale as the 2024 deletion nomination. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

    There are enough sources in its history, also, none of the sources are from TV5's websites. RandomMe98 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    I see press releases and churnalism. Are there any that talk about it in-depth? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't found any in-depth information about recent developments, most of my searches for TV5 Davao even on Rappler are scarce, it doesn't help that Philippine TV is one of my weakest points, the community is heavily reliant on misinformation and also false claims that the station existed before Martial Law, I replaced one of the sources with one from Rappler which covered the same as the previous source, but the problem with the Big 3 networks is the amount of churnalism and shownalism that I find, which is excessive RandomMe98 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. I took a look at the Rapper source and it mentions the parent network (TV5), but not this individual channel. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, unfortunately I think I should quit this article, because there is little to no information. Also it doesn't help that local programming is minimal since its beginnings RandomMe98 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    Do you have access (e.g., know a language other than English) to any non-English sourcing by chance? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Jdcooper, @Ohnoitsjamie, @CNMall41, @Bbb23, @RandomMe98, @Khairul hazim, @ViperSnake151.... Isn't it also a notable and reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic regarding the Philippine TV like this....???!!!
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxcPVBBrJ74 202.67.47.23 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
    Sources are scarce, and information is heavily conflictive. Moreover, the callsigns are not used in the Philippine newspaper sources I find RandomMe98 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Sammi Brie 223.255.224.100 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    @WayKurat 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Myrabert01, @Vineyard93 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Dani1603, @Pratama26 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    @JacobSanchez295, @Señor verde 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Possibly Delete and/or Redirect and Merge into TV5 Network. Trishie042512 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    • What a mess. (For the record, the ping did not work, so I am only seeing this now.) The problem right now is there is not nearly enough sourcing to sustain this article. This is a source availability problem in large part, as is typical in the Philippines. If a Davao publication were available for the years covered in station history and covered it reasonably well, there could be an article here. But that is not the case. Redirect to TV5 Network. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: FInal relist.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
    Redirect as per Sammi Brie. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

    Moujhed Fahid Khalifa

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Declined prod. All the sources are databases/results listing.

    WP:NATH. LibStar (talk
    ) 02:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: inelig for soft deletion
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak keep – The athlete has a consistent career and not just a random Olympic competition. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment From some forums, he does seem to be at least the best-performing all time track and field athlete from Iraq, do we call that best? To the point of searches, his name has been transliterated from Arabic in various other ways - and I'm not entirely sure the (OR?) Arabic rendering at our article is accurate. In quick search I've seen the first name also spelt Moujahed/Moujahid/Mujihid (generally, it does have a vowel in the middle), and the middle name spelt Fahd and Fahad. The Olympics website has him as Mujihid Fahad Khalifa [4]. Kingsif (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
      • What Arabic names have you used to search? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
        I've been using English Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
        English forums calling him the greatest? Could you point me to any of them?
        WP:NSPORT pass, and none is present here. The Eastmain MENA database has newspapers from this era, including Arabic-language newspapers, and covers this region, and there is no significant coverage of the subject in it. As has been discussed many times, news coverage in the newspapers of a dictatorship, which Iraq most definitely was in 1979-80, is very very different to the kind of coverage that US-based editors who have never experienced a dictatorship might expect.
      And yes, the fact that even the name of the subject of this article is unclear is a good reason to be suspect both of Olympedia and the entire methodology behind the creation of these articles. It is the precise reason why articles should never have been created en masse based on what is ultimately a single source (albeit one repeated in many different places). We need significant coverage, in secondary sourcing, where people who know what they're doing have checked the facts already for us. FOARP (talk
    ) 08:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    "suspect both of Olympedia and the entire methodology behind the creation of these articles. It is the precise reason why articles should never have been created en masse based on what is ultimately a single source (albeit one repeated in many different places)." The original version of this article didn't cite Olympedia. Lugnuts didn't use Olympedia for his stubs. He used Sports Reference. Here is a 2020 Olympic article of his. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Olympedia is Sport-reference.com's Olympics database ported to another site. They are the same source. FOARP (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Well, he didn't cite Olympedia, he still cited Sports Reference. Sports Reference isn't reliable? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    The name is as equally unclear on Sport-reference.com as it is on Olympedia - these are the same source, the mistakes found on one typically being in the other. The Olympic Journal has their name down as "Khalifa, Mujhid Fahad" (see pages 57 and 611 of the pagination here) so why exactly they decided to second-guess that transcription of the name of the subject is not clear. Similarly it is not clear where the Arabic name came from (the suspicion is that possibly this might have been generated using Google translate or a similar tool by one of the volunteer contributors for sports-reference.com/Olympedia based on the romanised name). FOARP (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

    Riaan Manser

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Promotional article about a person with one source that reports on the

    WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim talk
    03:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

    ) 09:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Comments on these sources?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

    Hakan Akbas

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Questionable if it meets

    WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk
    ) 00:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

    • Comment - Akbas appears to have no article on the Turkish Wikipedia (or any other). --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep – He has coverage in national and international media and has appeared as a commentator on major news channels including NTV, CNN, and CNBC. That makes him notable. Here are some links of his appearances in reliable media outlets: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacmocc (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    Appearing in media does not grant notability. Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

    Lip Service (2000 film)

    Lip Service (2000 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable film. From

    WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any better sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk
    ) 05:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Hard keep: This page may not seem as notable at this moment, although there many avenues through which the page could be made more notable. Deleting or erasing this article would mean a serious disaster from which my career would never really recover, not mentioning severe embarrassment and hard insults toward me which are undeserved. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
      It has nothing to do with your career, we need sourcing about the film in order to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment: I did find a Variety review by one of their known staff writers, as well as an article announcing that the film was to be made. I did see this short mention in a volume of TV Guide, but it looks to be a mention of a TV interview so that would probably be seen as a primary source?
    Now, as far as the nomination goes, don't take it too hard. Just about everyone on Wikipedia has had something reverted, deleted, or nominated for deletion at one point or another - sometimes even after they've been around for a while. It's not meant to be an insult or attack.
    To go over the sourcing a bit more, what is needed here are sources that are reliable, independent, and in-depth. So for example, VideoHound could probably be used to back up basic details but can't be used to establish notability because they're too short and in some cases, are just plot summary with no actual commentary to justify the bones rating. Capsule reviews have much of the same issue, as they are often very short and are more summary than review.
    I'll go over the sourcing in a bit more depth on the AfD talk page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    Hey Reader, thank you for understanding. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    No problem! It can get overwhelming on here, I know. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: It looks like additional sources have been uncovered that deserve additional discussion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak keep: Sources 2 and 4 shown above are the best with critical review sections. We probably have just enough to meet notability. I've tried in .ca sources, there just isn't much online. Probably in newspaper archives... Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment in reply to Cunard - the Variety source is great, but the Minnesota Star Tribune source is far too scanty: one paragraph of 119 words in a "variety" column that also covers Internet moving services, a TV show and an article exhibition about hair is nowhere close to the requirements of
      WP:NFILM full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.. It is a perfect example of a capsule review, which is not sufficient. Something else along the lines of the Variety source is needed. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk
      ) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: For a clearer consensus
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

    Meyzenq

    Meyzenq (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 disambiguation page is unnecessary. At present, there is only one Wikipedia article referring to an individual with the surname Meyzenq, namely

    CAT:RWP, to the existing article on Raymond Meyzenq, since he is the only person with that surname currently covered on this platform. QEnigma (talk)
    03:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is a surname page, not a dab page. It's reasonable to include the CEO, for whom a redirect would also be reasonable. PamD 08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
      @PamD: It was a disambiguation page until you altered it ([13]). Your position would have been much clearer if that was included with your post. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
      @QEnigma It was always a surname page. It was incorrectly labelled as a disambiguation page. PamD 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
      @QEnigma But, OK, it might have been helpful if I had pointed that out ! Sorry about that. PamD 11:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
      @PamD: I understand your position. However, it would have been preferable to make the alterations through consensus. That was the primary reason this article was listed on AfD forums. Nevertheless, I maintain the view that this article, whether a disambiguation page or a surname-related entry, requires the inclusion of more notable individuals with existing Wikipedia articles in order to be retained. As you are aware, there are numerous senior executives across various notable companies who do not have individual Wikipedia articles on them and are therefore not included in surname-related pages. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
      @QEnigma I don't think any specific consensus is needed to remove an incorrect {{tl|dab}} template and add the correct {{tl|surname}} template. The AfD template says "Feel free to improve the article".
      Plenty of CEOs don't have links, plenty do. I've made a redirect from him to the company, and tweaked the dab page accordingly. PamD 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, it looks like a "No consensus" closure or, possibly, a "Keep" closure. Any more opinions now that the template has been corrected?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. Two entries is enough (barely) for a surname list. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - Is there a policy or essay somewhere that guides our general decision-making around surname lists? I've been wondering this for a while, as most surname lists are completely unsourced and almost certainly don't meet
      WP:CSC (for example) only refers to the selection criteria for inclusion on a notable list. I'd appreciate any pointers. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk
      ) 18:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    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.

    Oyayubihime (film)

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unfortunately, after looking around for sources to the best of my ability, searching under both English and Japanese names, I can't find any good sources for this film. The other-language equivalents of this article appear about as barren of useful references as this is (although the Japanese article is about the anthology series of films that this is part of, rather than the film by itself). The only reference I do know of is this article about Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim which briefly mentions it, but obviously that doesn't pass SIGCOV. If anyone can find any good sources, I'd be happy to see this kept, but as the situation stands I'm not seeing it. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting. Please offer one suggestion, not three. Also, the outcome of an AFD can not be Rename or Move as that is an editorial decision that editors must discuss. So, if that is the result you want, argue to Keep and then a Move can be discussed on the article talk page.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    It seems that relisting comment was partially addressed to me, so I'll reply. "Rename" seems to be a perfectly valid and pretty standard AfD !vote. As it implies refocusing the article on a broader subject matter that includes the topic discussed here, I think it is best to leave my !vote the way I originally conceived it. "Rename" implies a Keep, yes, but I assume any good faith closer will understand that. As for one suggestion not three, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#One bolded vote, which clearly states:

    Editors may leave multiple recommendations as alternatives when unsure, for instance "Merge or redirect".

    Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

    Jayshree Misra Tripathi

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article does not meet the criteria outlined in

    WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶
    18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment:

    Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk

    ) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

    WP:AUTHOR, with the reviews added by DaffodilOcean. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

    Sudip Pandey

    AfDs for this article:
    Sudip Pandey (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 is may not notable according to

    WP:SIG in reliable, independent sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶
    18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment: Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep There is a lot of coverage of his death. Searching on his name in Devanagari (सुदीप पांडे), I also find some coverage of his films prior to his death, particularly V for Victor, which could be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk
    ) 14:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
    @RebeccaGreen, Thank you for your advice. I have added some additional sources as citations and expanded the article with his political career. Can you review it again?
    Zuck28 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Improved the article. Given his acting career, which includes lead roles in more than 40 films and notable awards, he easily passes
    WP:SK#4.Zuck28 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

    • Abhimanyu Shammi Thilakan

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails

    WP:GNG. No significant coverage and most sources are non-bylined churnalism, mentions, or otherwise unreliable. Previously deleted A7 and G11 under Abhimanyu S Thilakan. CNMall41 (talk
    ) 04:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

    Past Sharks squads

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails

    WP:GNG. We don't keep lists like this. Readers who may be interested in previous players can see historic players at List of Sharks (rugby union) players, transfer lists for URC and Super Rugby competitions and season pages. Rugbyfan22 (talk
    ) 13:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

    Not opposed to merging this with the List of Sharks (rugby union) players, subject to resolution of the distinction of Currie Cup vs URC players, as if those players - who meet notability requirements - are excluded then List of Sharks (rugby union) players is incomplete. Whybeetoo (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    This would be dependent on the outcome of the discussion on the WikiProject. I'd be opposed to full squad boxes but if we can find information on Currie Cup players (which I found incredibly difficult in creating this list) then can be added in another section if consensus reached. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
    WP:NOTDATABASE. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

    Huayi Publishing House

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Reads like a press release and it may be better to

    WP:STARTOVER. Amigao (talk
    ) 01:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

    ) 11:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep and clean-up Tone is one of the easier things to fix on Wikipedia. Anything that is too self-serving can be simply edited and removed. The publisher is clearly notable. Archrogue (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep- as Cunard (talk) article can be stay, given the RS available for the subject, and just needs some improving on tone of the article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

    List of Belgian provinces by life expectancy

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NOTDATABASE，the article looks like data tables? 日期20220626 (talk
    ) 00:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    ) 18:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge with Demographics of Belgium: where it is a perfect fit, with no need to independently meet NLIST. Owen× ☎ 22:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has 11 reliable sources, meaning it satisfies notability.
    WP:NOTDATABASE. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
    • I'll add that this comes across as properly part of a more general comparison between the provinces/regions than as a strictly demographic dump. Mangoe (talk
    ) 21:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
    From my humble point of view, spread of 4 years is enough tangible. On the other hand, informatin that this spread is only 4 years but not 10 is also valuable knowledge.
    A Wikipedia article must give reliable information, but it does not have to have a ready-made conclusion. —     Lady3mlnm (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

    Gustavinho em o Enigma da Esfinge

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Orphaned article with little content; the original game has little sigcov of note, with only notable coverage being reviews of the remake, with individual review websites being of unclear reliability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit
    14:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    I found a video on Alê McHaddo, the developer's founder, by Meio&Mensagem. IgelRM (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    2 more related sources: A animação de um artista, Osmar: A Primeira Fatia do Pão de Forma completa 30 anos. Both don't appear give this game much notability. IgelRM (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - So I had look at the sources again and the news announcement by Universo Online is the best one: [16]. It contains some critical analysis. Then there is a preview of the original game when it was still in development in this print magazine: [17]. I still think this subject is below notability. No actual review of the original game or the remake. There are really short writeups: [18]:

    "Nesta edição, o pessoal da CD Expert Kids caprichou. E a criançada irá viajar ao Egito, junto com Gustavinho, um menino esperto e cheio de energia. Serão horas de diversão e aventuras inimagináveis na tentativa de desvendar os mistérios do Oriente Médio, tudo isso num CD- ROM totalmente em português e com a participação especial de Marisa Orth, a Magda do programa Sai de Baixo."

    Google translate: "In this edition, the folks at CD Expert Kids have gone all out. And the kids will travel to Egypt, along with Gustavinho, a smart and energetic boy. There will be hours of fun and unimaginable adventures in an attempt to unravel the mysteries of the Middle East, all on a CD-ROM entirely in Portuguese and with a special appearance by Marisa Orth, Magda from the program Sai de Baixo."

    This thing: [19] and this: [20]. You would think that something called a "classic" would get an actual review or retrospective in 29 years... --Mika1h (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    I think there is a good chance 44 Toons or McHaddo are notable and would merge/redirect there if there were EN articles. I question the notability of this game based on the provided sources, but only leaning delete because of aforementioned. IgelRM (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

    Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party

    AfDs for this article:
    Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party (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)

    Restarting a deletion discussion for this article, will aim to detail in a reply Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

    I originally nominated this article for deletion back in March of this year. Following a larger search for sources, I only found five worth noting:
    Even within these sources, the subject is only given small mentions that are one or a few sentences in length. A commenter on the previous AfD mentioned that there would've been print media discussions of the party, though I couldn't find any such sources archived (even by searching the name of the party in Arabic, no results come up). Having not found more than these five sources with more or similar discussion, it's safe to assume that the articles fails
    WP:ORGSIG applies as other similar parties exist that advocate for the same things. I argue for deletion based on these merits. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete - This was the party of Saddam Hussein, who was executed in 2006. Nothing found that indicates this party still exists. — Maile (talk
    ) 03:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    WP:Notability is not temporary. Just because it is no longer exists does not itself mean it isn't notable. Curbon7 (talk
    ) 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    "This was the party of Saddam Hussein"? What? Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - this already passed a AfD very recently. Nothing has changed since, and my argument remains: "whilst contemporary internet coverage is very scarse, it is worth noting that it would have received media attention in print media in Iraq at the time (esp. as being propped up by the govt at the time). The stance on national question is also interesting, as contrast to other groups. Here is an English version of its program [21]." --Soman (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allblessed (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Question to @Soman - I stated above that I couldn't find any print media discussions of the party anywhere online, much less archived. What exactly is your rationale for keeping the article if these sources can't be found, and the existing sources do not indicate sufficient notability? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
    Saying the sources can't be found is very different from saying you couldn't find them. It is also possible they are not on the internet. A deeper dive into the additional sources on the more expansive Catalan Wikipedia article on the subject could be a good starting point. Ike Lek (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Ike Lek I'm referring to Soman's mentioning of "print media in Iraq", which I couldn't find anywhere. I looked at the Catalan Wikipedia, some of the sources I linked in my first comment were cited there, and my point still stands. That of course doesn't preclude that the article can be expanded if extra sources are rediscovered, but it's been nearly 18 years with very little additions since then so I doubt they exist. The topic is simply not notable and any available discussion is incredibly light to justify the article as it is. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

    Lawley Pharmaceuticals

    – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    promo of nn pharma. No independent coverage. I started cutting the fluff off, then noticed that someone else last week cut it in half already, and concluded that a more drastic handling is due. --

    >talk
    20:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC) (

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Snotbot/AfD%27s_requiring_attention&oldid=1064578135"