KidzSearch Wiki

Deletion review/Archives/2025

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ardi Pulaj

Hi i want to request undeletion of page Ardi Pulaj, his notability is confirmed in Albanian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia ( after a discussion) with related arguments.If his page will be restored, further references will be added to prove his notability here also.[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]
Thank you.--81.26.204.11 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The page was quick-deleted as 'A4 - doubtful notability'; what could possibly be done is to undewlete the page, and to send it to a disussed deltion. This would run for a week, and afterwards an independent admin would close the RfD. Dear IP editor, please create an account, if you want to contribute more often; your voice will aso have more weight. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
If the draft on enwiki w:Draft:Ardi_Pulaj is similar to what's here, I would prefer not to undelete it. Many of the sources are BY Pulaj, or are interviews with Pulaj, what's needed are sources ABOUT Pulaj. The socking aspects don't help my view either. Ravensfire (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
That first source is just an item written by the subject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking through most of the stuff, it seems like a lot of the sources are either where the subject appears on TV, or is something written by the subject. I don't see much to show they meet WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: The draft on enwiki is similar. If anything, it contains more info than the article here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Gotcha. If it's easier to run this though an AFD to put this to bed, that sounds okay to me. I suspect there's some IP sock evasion from Benny8907 here. Ravensfire (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
be more open dude, not everyone has time to spend to ip invade for just an article!! you treat this like law and order...!! 185.175.253.205 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I dont understand your afraid about "socking" aspect?!! If someone is notable in his country (Albania) this case ..whats matter if socket created his pagae that deleted later?! By this never will be created or approved a page of an notaable people just becouse was first created by a sockpuppet?! for me this is wayy unlogically!! This is Wikipedia not Court!! 185.175.253.205 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse continued deletion - Lee summarises my conclusions well. Griff (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Enrique Mendiola

Mendiola historical marker
Dear admins, I would like to respectfully request the undeletion of the article, Enrique Mendiola. His notability can be seen in Tagalog Wikipedia, Enrique Mendiola despite the gruff header (note: it is not being deleted in spite of it). Enrique Mendiola (b.1859 — d.1914) is one of the Philippines' pioneer educators and legal authors. The thoroughfare named after him, Mendiola Street has been the stage for many mass rallies for human rights; and political and labor protests. I can volunteer to work with further erudition and improve these articles — if allowed. For your consideration, please. Buszmail (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse A4 QD deletion - Non notable individual whom fails GNG, the article at Tagalog Wikipedia only has 2 references; one is a personal blog, the other is okay but probably taken from the Tagalog article so imho cannot be used. I have found the following books [6][7][8][9][10] however these are all 2-bit mentions and other Google Book results all appear to be for someone else(?). Nothing in-depth or substantial has been provided by the OP other than "he's notable", Clear close and shut case imho. –Davey2010Talk 23:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've also QD'd the Tagalog article (archive version, sources in article: [11][12]) –Davey2010Talk 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    You may want to check the Tagalog page once more: Enrique Mendiola and re-archive if you wish. Mendiola is one of our country's unsung patriots. Best, Buszmail (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
As a final appeal for Wikipedia worthiness:

Respectfully,
Buszmail (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse continued deletion - Reviewing the Tagalog article, the subject of the article does not meet our biographical or academic notability guidelines. I have also reviewed the sources provided by Buszmail and cannot find SIGCOV of this person. Griff (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Blinkit

I am requesting a review for the deleted page "Blinkit." The company is notable as it is already covered extensively on the English Wikipedia (en:Blinkit), where its importance and relevance have been established. Blinkit is a leading player in India's quick-commerce industry and was acquired by Zomato, a publicly listed company. I believe this topic meets the notability criteria and is suitable for Simple English Wikipedia as well. I am prepared to rewrite the page in simpler language to match the guidelines. Abhey City (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Userfy. This was deleted due to advertising, and it's not all that neutral. It would probably be ok with some pruning and a copyedit. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I would like to request the article "Blinkit" to be moved to my user space for further editing. I will ensure the content is rewritten to meet Simple English Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and tone. Abhey City (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done - The article is now found here. Griff (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you @Griffinofwales, I've made the page to neutral can you please check and make it in mainspace? Abhey City (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Article no longer meets G11 and has been restored. Thank you Abhey City. If other members of the community believe the article should be deleted, it should be done through the RFD process. Griff (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Griff (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Objection to the quick removal of Jadidi music

Hello, a Jadidi music article was tagged by a user because of the creation of the deleted article. I object to this, is it not possible to restore an article that has already been deleted by correcting the defects? Does an article that is deleted remain banned from Wikipedia forever? This article was removed in the past due to some defects, but now it has been fixed, please keep it, and deal with the quick removal. Oosmoosatv (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Oosmoosatv: It looks like that article was deleted because you were evading a block, possibly even multiple blocks, when you created it, even though the blocks weren't on the userid you used to create the article. (Blocks are intended to apply to a person, not necessarily just to a specific account.) (@MathXplore:, please confirm.)
Even if that wasn't the issue, I think that article could have been deleted under WP:QD#G4 (recreating deleted content), even though it was created under a different title. Therefore, I endorse the deletion of the article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback to the review. I'm sure that I'm facing the same user again, and a steward has agreed to my assessment. MathXplore (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
With the nom locked the request could probably be marked as resolved now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Griff (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Black Joe

I wrote the page so simply to avoid its being mistaken for advertisement. I am more than willing to change the writing as administrators say. Please think whether the sources below are enough for Black Joe to meet WP: GNG.

carriers of sources

According to BBC's Macau media guide, Macao Daily News, Jornal Tribuna de Macau and Macao News (a.k a. MacauNews) are all great news companies of Macao. According to BBC's Hong Kong media guide, HK01 is a great news company of Hong Kong. If you believed the BBC was right, you would presume all of those four to be reliable.

content of sources

  1. HK01's significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (Muay Thai) and performer (Google Translate-d)
  2. Jornal Tribuna de Macau's significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (kickboxing and Muay Thai) (Copy to Google Translate)
  3. Macao Daily News' significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao performer and fighter (Muay Thai) (Copy to Google Translate)
  4. Macao News' significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (Muay Thai) (No need to translate)

answering questions

  1. Auntof6: You asked for 'A statement of something that makes the subject notable', I give 'Black Joe is a famous Macao Muay Thai fighter and performer'. I am willing to put all those sources and their main points in the topic page.
  2. Griffinofwales: You had already said that two of the sources above were 'reliable' and had given 'significant coverage'. This time, please take a look at the other two as well. WP:GNG does not limit the ways for anyone to become 'notable'. In this case, 'Macao Muay Thai fighter' is point one, 'Macao performer' is point two. I am willing to re-write in any ways you see fit.

something else

There had been mistakes with procedures. Otherwise, we would now be talking on a 're-listed' 'deletion discussion' instead of an 'undeletion discussion'. This may be talked about later. 江马 (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Saying that someone is famous does not show notability. It is a claim of notability, which can prevent quick deletion of an article, but it doesn't really show the notability. Remember that we are looking for notability, not fame. Saying that a person is famous is kind of vague. For example, you or I might be famous for some things among our friends, but that doesn't make us notable for Wikipedia purposes.
I just looked again at what was in the article when it was deleted. It contained statements about:
  • The person's stage name and various forms of his real name
  • Being a showman and sportsman
  • His ethnic background
  • Companies he acted for
  • Singing with TiKMAN
  • A statement of things he is "good at" (Being good at something in no way shows notability. I'm sure we're all good at something, but that doesn't make us notable.)
None of those show notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Before you left these words, I had already told you twice that I was willing to change the article as you wished. So, there has been no need to worry how good or how bad the deleted writing was, as it had nothing to do with a topic's 'notability' according to Wikipedia's rules. Have you read the sections carriers of sources and content of sources above yet? Do the four sources described there make Black Joe meet 'WP:GNG'? May you talk about this for the first time? 江马 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@江马 I hear that you're willing to improve the article, but that's not the issue. This page is for discussing the deletion that happened, not how to improve the article. Maybe you would like to create it in a personal sandbox where you can make improvements and, assuming you want to, ask for comments and/or suggestions.
One more thing: I can understand that you might be frustrated about the article getting deleted, but please stop shouting with bolded text. Thanks.
With that, I've said all I think I have to say here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I apologize for my words having some-how made you feel bad, but I am sure that you have got me wrong. Setting some words bold do not mean 'shouting' or 'frustration' at all. It is just a useful way to mind others not to miss something. For example, I like Griffinofwales' bolding of the words 'not' and 'in my opinion' because it minds me where to take a close look at. Seeing your 'I've said all I think I have to say here.' and 'This page is for discussing the deletion that happened, not how to improve the article.', I know it is time to move on to start talking about the 'something else'. You may still want to take a look at the new part 'wrong procedures' below. 江马 (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
As for the RFD, I have already made my position known. My opinion is formed around the statement that not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation (Notability guideline). Why? 1. Black Joe has not met the subject-specific notability guidelines. 2. the coverage in reliable sources is not focused on any aspect of him except for that identified in the subject-specific notability guidelines (for example, they do not say he saved 100 people or invented a new way of fighting), and 3. local news sources frequently will cover events, companies, and peoples of local interest. That, in my opinion, should not automatically grant notability.
However, the primary reason for a DRV is not to discuss the merits of the article again, but to review the RFD. As an involved editor, I do have some bias, but this RFD fell appropriately to the closing administrator to use discretion in independently evaluating policies, guidelines, and the arguments made to close the RFD. In this respect, I believe that Auntof6 has 1. appropriately assessed the RFD in line with the policies, guidelines, and arguments given in the RFD and 2. closed the RFD within the bounds of the broad discretion administrators are given to assess RFDs.
I appreciate the respectful discussions we have had on this topic and look forward to working with you further on the project. Griff (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Griffinofwales: Thank you for telling me more about your thoughts on the topic's notability. I now understand that 'in 'your' opinion', the sources I wished you cared do not need to be talked about... never mind! Just as I had said in the 'something else' part above, I do know that a DRV is mainly used 'to review the RFD'. In fact, I started this DRV according to Auntof6's odd reply, that is why it looks quite like an AFD. I am starting a 'wrong procedures' part below to talk about this matter. 江马 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
@江马 There is a consensus to delete based on what I see. The other keep comment doesn't say anything more than what you already mentioned. You have failed to gain agreement to the claim that the sources are reliable, independent and show the significance of the subject. There is barely any content in the page to begin with, supported by load of sources that are only there to make the subject look notable, which is not very normal. I will just endorse deletion here. BRP ever 14:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

wrong procedures

From the start of the AFD, my main point has been that the five or four sources are enough to show that Black Joe meets WP:GNG.. That is an elephant in the room! Since Griffinofwales joined the discussion and did not use any administrator tools, they are free to choose to talk and think about anything or not. However, Auntof6 is different. According to the WP:DP on regular English Wikipedia, 'The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should be done only when there is consensus to delete.' This is useful here because Simple English Wikipedia's WP:DP does not have such a part. When she closed the discussion by deleting, no extra words were left. So I asked whether she had found consensus in it, but none of her replies were about this. Her saying about the discussion was '...felt...correct...' and '...arguments...stronger...'. Instead, she kept stressing that the lack of notability was due to what she saw on the deleted writing, which was off-topic according to 'WP:ARTN'. The 'delete' side did talk about it, but does it go with policies or guidelines? Is this point great enough to make the other side's point about 'WP:GNG' not worth looking at at all? As we can see in the talk above, she would not say anything on whether the four sources described there make Black Joe meet 'WP:GNG', which is the 'keep' side's main point. I assumed good faith of Auntof6, but now we can clearly see that she is quite biased in this case. She should have joined the discussion the way Griffinofwales did, or just let another administrator do the closing if it was too late, instead of going ahead without ever willing to show how much her choice has to do with any 'consensus' already on the table to look for. If that AFD was closed as 'keep' by someone else, Auntof6 could choose to re-list it without using administrator tools, and then write down anything that goes with or against Wikipedia's rules there. In short, if there had been a consensus in the discussion, the administrator should follow it when closing. Other-wise, the page should be kept and the AFD may be re-listed right away by them. 江马 (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You are just skipping the whole content and mentioning lines. 'I read the arguments, and for me the arguments for deleting were stronger than the ones for keeping' was the main point. Consensus is judged based on arguments and your disagreement is accounted, as is the comments by other editors. An admin can also check the page to see if the claims made in RFD are true or not. BRP ever 14:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
 Delete @江马: Give up already! As you know so much about the written rules, your brain must've understood enough about what'd been going on days ago. There's never been an accident, it's just that your heart wouldn't take it in! Of course it's wrong to delete your article, but I'm voting in this way for your wellbeing. It's pointless to argue why the goalposts keep moving, simply let it go... 微甜微酸微苦＿＿微鹹 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
endorse deletion fr33kman 02:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Not restored Consensus to keep the article deleted.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:People with developmental coordination disorder

:I have gone through my reasoning on the category page, but it has since been deleting, so I am going through it again here.

I want the category for people with developmental coordination disorder to be undeleted. The reason is that there are clear double standards at play regarding the deletion. You can see the original reasoning as to why it was delted here. The category was deleted per WP:NONDEFINING, as the articles which I presume were listed under developmental coordination did not focus on the people's dyspraxia to a large extent. I do not know what articles were originally listed, however, I did make a category last week, which got deleted because of this consensus and so if the list was like mine, this does not hold up to scrutiny. Some people, such as Gage Golightly, do in fact have a significant amount of their article dedicated to their dyspraxia, as half of Gage Golightly's early life section is about her dyspraxia. Others, such as Olive Gray, spend just as much time on their dyspraxia as they do other disabilities, in Olive Gray's case being her ADHD and dyslexia, yet are listed in categories relating to those other disabilities. Tom Hunt's page focuses more on his dyspraxia than his dyslexia, yet he is listed in a category for politicians with dyslexia. Other articles, such as the aforementioned article on Gage Golightly, as well as the article for Daniel Radcliffe, have them listed in categories for people with disabilities, despite dyspraxia being the only disability mentioned. It does not make sense that dyspraxia is unable to have its own category because it is "not defining", yet there are so many pages under categories for people with ADHD and dyslexia, even in cases where dyspraxia gets just as much attention within the article as the other two disabilities. This is clear double standards, and I would like the category to get undeleted.

The person who has originally suggested to delete the article also told me that part of their rationale was that dyspraxia affects about 5% of people, and that is too common to be defining for most people, which is another example of double standards at play, as dyslexia also affects about 5% of people, and, as we've established, there is no shortage of pages listed on various categories of people with dyslexia. And as for whether dyspraxia is not severe enough to be considered defining, many of the people listed in categories of people with dyslexia do not seem to have severe cases of dyslexia either.

I can think of no good reason why I cannot make a category for people with developmental coordination disorder, yet there are 116 pages and 9 subcategories under the people with dyslexia category. The only reasons for this I can think of is double standards, a poor understanding of developmental coordination disorder, and misuse of the non-defining rule.--UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This should be addressed on the English Wikipedia, not here. Griff (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Marking as quick closed per Griff, not a matter related to the Simple English Wikipedia. The request should be made at the appropriate place at enwiki.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 22:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 22:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Please undelete the page People's Insight

This section was archived on a request by: Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I am writing to request the undeletion of the "People's Insight" page. We have added all necessary references and sources to the page, confirming that it pertains to an exit poll and political analysis company. We are committed to adhering to Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. We assure you that we are ready and willing to promptly address any further edits or modifications that you may require to ensure the page's compliance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your positive response and the restoration of the "People's Insight" page. 009dishu (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Please provide references here that show that this company has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Griff (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
People's Insight has received significant coverage in reliable media outlets for its role in conducting exit polls during the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025, demonstrating its noteworthiness. Here are references:
  • Wikipedia's 2025 Delhi Legislative Assembly Election Page: This page lists People's Insight among the pollsters that conducted exit polls for the 2025 Delhi elections, indicating its involvement in significant political events. en.wikipedia.org
  • NDTV Article: An article titled "Delhi Election Results 2025: BJP In, AAP Out, Exit Polls Get BJP's Capital Wapsi Right" discusses the accuracy of various exit polls, including those by People's Insight, in predicting the election outcome. ndtv.com
  • Business Standard Report: The report "Exit polls proven right in Delhi as AAP witnesses an unprecedented rout" highlights the role of different exit polls, mentioning People's Insight's contributions to the electoral analysis. business-standard.com These references demonstrate that People's Insight has received significant coverage in reliable sources for its role in conducting exit polls during the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025. Thank you and please reconsider your decision and let me know if anything else is required.
009dishu (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
The NDTV and Business Standard Report articles are passing mentions only, not good sources. Other Wikipedia pages are also not good sources. We may use the data in our articles, but the entity that produces the data is not automatically notable because of that reason. To show notability, there need to be multiple independent (read w:WP:NEWSORGINDIA) reliable sources with significant coverage of the article subject. That's not being shown with these sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. To address the notability concerns regarding the "People's Insight" article, I have conducted an extensive search for independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, particularly in the context of the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections. Here are the findings:
Our Media Coverage : peoplesinsight.in
  1. Hindustan Times Article: In an article discussing exit polls for the 2025 Delhi elections, Hindustan Times mentions People's Insight's projections: "People's Insight projected more than 40 seats for the Bharatiya Janata Party, giving the incumbent AAP 25 to 29 seats." hindustantimes.com
  2. Times of India Report: The Times of India, in its coverage of exit polls, notes: "According to People's Insight exit poll, the NDA is likely to get 40 to 44 seats, the AAP 25 to 29 seats." m.timesofindia.com
  3. CNBC TV18 Coverage: CNBC TV18 highlights People's Insight's predictions: "People's Insight predicts AAP winning 25-29 seats, BJP 40-44 seats and Congress 0-2 seats." cnbctv18.com This comes under Incorporating information about People's Insight's contributions and projections into broader articles related to the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections or discussions on polling agencies in India
009dishu (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@009dishu, using an AI generated reply that's basically exactly the same as the one I replied to, and ignored the points I made about significant coverage is not helpful. I get that you're employed by this company and probably are getting pushed to get something published, but responding as you are, with AI generated replies and ignoring the policy based issues that others are raising does not help and is starting to get into disruptive territory.
In short, this list of sources utterly lack significant coverage, just like the other ones you have listed. This is starting to feel like a waste of time when you don't really read the policy pages that are being linked. And please, don't even try to say your replies here aren't AI generated. They are. It's that obvious. Ravensfire (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I understand the need for stronger sources and better alignment with Wikipedia’s notability policies. I’ll review the guidelines again and work on finding more substantial coverage. Thanks again. 009dishu (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Who is the "we" you are referring to? Also, have you read w:WP:PAID and make the required disclosures? These are not optional, and it's part of the Terms of Use you agree to follow every time you edit. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
"Regarding the 'we' reference:
I am referring to the team or representatives of People's Insight involved in managing our public communications and ensuring accurate representation on platforms like Wikipedia.
Disclosure Compliance:
Yes, I am aware of and have read Wikipedia's Paid Contribution Disclosure Policy (WP:PAID). To comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use, I disclose that I am associated with People's Insight and contributing on their behalf. All edits and discussions are being made transparently to improve the accuracy and neutrality of the page in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines."
Thank you and please reconsider your decision and let me know if anything else is required. 009dishu (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Recommend continued deletion - Subject of the article does not meet notability requirements. -Griff (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as outlined by the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Specifically, the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, rather than mere mentions.
If there are specific areas that require more clarification or additional references, I’m happy to provide further sources or improvements to the article. I kindly ask for reconsideration based on the available evidence. 2405:201:5023:4046:4817:497C:4EB2:6C34 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as outlined by the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Specifically, the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, rather than mere mentions.
If there are specific areas that require more clarification or additional references, I’m happy to provide further sources or improvements to the article. I kindly ask for reconsideration based on the available evidence
009dishu (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
There is no way that we would simply undelete this article. It was unambiguous advertising. DRV is where we discuss whether a deletion was correctly applied, not a place to hash out whether an article should exist. I endorse the deletion and should probably be closed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi Lee Vilenski, I understand your thoughts but let me tell you it's not a advertising or anything related to promotion, It's directly related to politics, People search for exit polls and we are that compamy, Here is a full proof article that is in "The Print" please check and I request you to undelete this page and let me know if anything else is required.
https://theprint.in/politics/exit-polls-enter-mystery-a-new-business-model-where-politics-is-key-sample-sizes-rarely-matter/2510663/ 2405:201:5023:402A:2489:A4FE:E6A:3360 (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Deletion Review and Article Restoration: Ayaz Syed

This section was archived on a request by: Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request a deletion review for the article about Ayaz Syed, which was deleted on 24 January 2025 following a deletion discussion ([link to the discussion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/Ayaz_Syed)).

I understand the concerns raised during the discussion, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources and the article's failure to meet notability guidelines (WP:BIO). However, I believe the article can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I would like the opportunity to do so.

Here’s why I think the article should be restored: 1. Notability Can Be Established: I have identified several reliable, independent sources** that provide significant coverage of Ayaz Syed's work and achievements. These sources include: 

  - [H! Pakistan article](https://www.hmagpak.com/22-Jun-2024/television-s-new-dream-team-hania-aamir-fahad-mustafa-in-kabhi-main-kabhi-tum) discussing his work on Jeeto Pakistan and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum**.  
  - [Good Times article](https://www.goodtimes.com.pk/2019/12/14/fahad-mustafa-peoples-actor/) highlighting his contributions as Fahad Mustafa's personal makeup artist.  
  - [Bol News article](https://www.bolnews.com/showbiz/2024/06/hania-aamir-fahad-mustafa-set-social-media-ablaze-with-bold-photoshoot/amp/) praising his work on Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum.

2. Opportunity to Improve**: The article was deleted before I could address the concerns raised by editors. By restoring the article, I can: 

  - Add proper citations** to reliable sources.  
  - Remove any promotional language and ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).  
  - Expand the article with verifiable information that meets Wikipedia's content standards

3. Subject's Relevance: Ayaz Syed has made notable contributions to the Pakistani entertainment industry, particularly as a makeup artist for prominent figures like Fahad Mustafa and popular shows like Jeeto Pakistan and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum. These contributions are worthy of documentation on Wikipedia.

4. Collaborative Improvement: I am committed to working with other editors to improve the article and ensure it meets community standards.

I kindly request the opportunity to restore the article and make these improvements. If there are specific guidelines or additional steps I need to follow, please let me know, and I will gladly comply.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the work you do to maintain the quality and integrity of Wikipedia.

Best regards, [Salman] 202.47.46.54 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/Ayaz_Syed 202.47.46.54 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Here is my AI-generated response to your AI-generated request:
Dear Salman,
Thank you for your message and your thoughtful request for a deletion review of the article on Ayaz Syed. We appreciate your effort to improve the article and your commitment to adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines.
After careful consideration, the decision to delete the article will stand. While we acknowledge your intention to enhance the content and provide additional sources, the article did not meet the notability standards (WP:BIO) during the deletion discussion. The sources provided, though valuable, do not establish sufficient coverage of Ayaz Syed as required for notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the article had issues with sourcing and promotional language that would need to be addressed for restoration.
Given the concerns raised during the deletion discussion and the continued lack of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, the restoration of the article is not feasible at this time. However, if more reliable sources are identified in the future that meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, a new article may be considered.
Thank you again for your understanding and for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Best regards, 2601:644:8184:F2F0:4C62:E0B:70C2:2EA1 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Administrator note: Although the IP's comment is worded as though it is authoritative, be aware that it is not. It should be taken as one user's opinion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support deletion: I looked at the article. Here is what it contained:
  • A statement that the subject is a Pakistani makeup artist
  • A statement that he is a makeup artist for a particular game show
  • A statement that he is the personal makeup artist for someone
  • Links to the subject's pages in IMDB and Instagram
None of these indicate notability, even with references. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi Dear,
I hope you're all doing well. I wanted to take a moment to address the recent discussion about the article on Ayaz Syed I understand the concerns raised about the article's current state, particularly regarding notability and the lack of sufficient reliable sources. I truly appreciate the time and effort everyone has put into reviewing the article and providing feedback.
That said, I’d like to respectfully request that the article be given a chance to stay, as I believe it can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. Here’s why
1 Notability Ayaz Syed has been a part of the Pakistani entertainment industry for over two decades, working on well-known projects like Jeeto Pakistan and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum. He’s also the personal makeup artist for Fahad Mustafa, a prominent actor and TV host. These contributions have been covered in reliable sources, such as:
- [H! Pakistan](https://www.hmagpak.com/22-Jun-2024/television-s-new-dream-team-hania-aamir-fahad-mustafa-in-kabhi-main-kabhi-tum), which discusses his work on Jeeto Pakistan and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum.
- [Good Times](https://www.goodtimes.com.pk/2019/12/14/fahad-mustafa-peoples-actor/), which highlights his role as Fahad Mustafa’s makeup artist.
- [Bol News](https://www.bolnews.com/showbiz/2024/06/hania-aamir-fahad-mustafa-set-social-media-ablaze-with-bold-photoshoot/amp/), which praises his work on Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum.
2 Improvements I’m more than willing to work on improving the article. Specifically, I plan to:
Add proper citations to the reliable sources mentioned above.
Expand the content to include more detailed information about his career and achievements.
Ensure the article adheres to*Wikipedia neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and avoids any promotional language.
I completely understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards, and I’m committed to making sure the article meets those guidelines. If there are any specific steps or additional improvements needed, please let me know—I’m happy to follow through.
Thank you all for your time and consideration. I really appreciate the work you do to keep Wikipedia accurate and reliable. 202.47.46.54 (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Endorse deletion I looked at the article and agreed with Auntof6's analysis and conclusion, and in the sources you have provided above I am unable to see any WP:SIGCOV of Ayaz Syed.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - the article was full of junk sources, the ones mentioned in this request are a passing mention (name-drop really) at best. It was a purely promotional article that should stay deleted. AI generated requests put my level of confindence in any useful improvement at a very low level. Ravensfire (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Endorse deletion this is a suitable close to the AfD. Almost all !votes were regarding deletion. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse deletion I think AI written undeletion request, This article has a full of junk sources. 🌙 Raayaan9911 Ramadan Kareem! 01:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Verdis

This section was archived on a request by: Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a micronation. In other words, someone claims to have created a country, but their claim is not taken seriously. It was deleted 3.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Verdis, but Free Republic of Verdis has been recreated. At this point, I think there is enough coverage of the topic to meet WP:GNG, so the article should remain. 2607:F140:6000:802A:78CA:262B:852B:1FDF (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is what DRV is for - 3 and a half years is enough time for the notability of a subject to be re-addressed. I'd move this item to the talk page (note: this isn't a review if the article meets GNG). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Lee, 3 years is more than enough time for the subject's notability to be re-addressed in a discussion.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Joe Tay

Joe Tay (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

Notable actor. I added several notable works. More can be readily seen in imdb bio. How is it advertising g11? RoyZuo (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the content. It didn't look like advertising to me, but I don't know if it showed notability. The only thing that might be a claim of notability, the statement that he won the CASH Pop Song Composition Competition, isn't sourced. Even if sourced, though, we'd probably need some evidence that winning that competition makes someone notable.
A couple of other comments:
  • The article needed some simplifying.
  • IMDB isn't considered a reliable source. We could use it to find information, but we'd have to verify it somewhere.
@Fr33kman:: Since you deleted this one, would you like to comment? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6600916 is being wanted with one-million-dollar bounty and hence getting on headline news notable or not? RoyZuo (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the article and agree it's not really advertising but it certainly doesn't make a credible claim of notability. I'd be willing to Undelete it and send it to RfD for more comment by the community as a whole. I think that would be the best thing to do. fr33kman 04:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Marking as resolved per Fr33kman sending it to RfD.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Fenjan Albalad

What is the reason of deletion of page?.--~~~~

Abduddaher (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The page was deleted under Criterion A3 (Complex articles with little to no simplification work being done).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Baddies season 4

Requesting undeletion, since the show is generally notable, exists on en, and the other seasons in Baddies (TV series) are notable enough to be kept. After a blocked sock put a QD request on the article, I put the Template:Wait on the article. I am not entirely sure why. Thanks, MrMeAndMrMeTalk 00:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like an IP recreated it. Looking at the original content, which is pretty much the same as the current content, I don't see anything that makes the season itself notable. It's mostly just a cast list. I'd normally expect to see an episode list in an article about a series season. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
"Template:xt is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles." - If you knew they were a blocked sock why did you let the QD stand ?..... Anyway as noted by Aunt the article has since been recreated so there's not a lot that can be done now, I'm assuming the content there now is the exact same as what got deleted in the first place, Either way nothing to be gained from deleting and undeleting, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Has been restored in English Wikipedia.--GZWDer (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
 Done this has already been restored. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Please restore Wicked (Maguire novel)

Wicked (Maguire novel) is definitely notable, even if that article itself doesn't show notability. The English Wikipedia version has many references. The article was long and detailed, so it should be restored and more content can be added. TagUser (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

endorse the article did not make a claim of notability explaining why it should have an article. fr33kman 01:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Endorse as Fr33kman said above, there was no claim of notability and A4 doesn't care if the subject is notable, only if they claim to be, which this one did not.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 12:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 12:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hospitals in Germany

Deletion reason invalid.--RoyZuo (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
The category guideline on this Wikipedia requires at least three entries for a new category. That category had fewer, so it was deleted (in 2021, by the way). If there are three entries to put into it, it can be recreated. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
RoyZuo (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
@RoyZuo: Those are all under Category:University hospitals in Germany. That category, not the individual articles, would go under Category:Hospitals in Germany, so there would be only one entry. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
So?
That doesnt mean these 3 articles cannot be placed directly under Category:Hospitals in Germany. You want 3 entries and here are 3 perfect entries. RoyZuo (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
@RoyZuo: They can't be under both a category and its parent. University hospitals would be a subcategory of the regular hospitals category. The individual articles would be under university hospitals because that is the most specific category. They can't be directly under both categories. This is explained in the categories guideline at Wikipedia:Categories#Choosing the correct category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Read that page you quote: Wikipedia:Categories#What_categories_should_the_new_category_be_in?. RoyZuo (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
It works differently on Simple than it does elsewhere. We basically require three categories or articles to sit directly within a category for it to be created. As it is, the University Hospitals cat can be placed into the categories that the one you are suggesting would go into, until there are enough articles that are just regular hospitals to make this suitable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  1. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Town_squares_in_Israel&action=history
  2. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Venezuelan_educators&action=history
  3. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Transport_companies_of_Russia&action=history
  4. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:World_War_II_politicians&action=history
  5. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Yobe_State&action=history
  6. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tunisian_artists&action=history
... RoyZuo (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, likely those items also don't meet our criteria. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
"likely"?
do you mean 50/50 chance? RoyZuo (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Why would I mean that? What you've done is link to other categories that might also have the same rationale for deletion. It's generally seen as a poor argument in a deletion discussion. See W:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  1. claiming other valid categories should be deleted to justify deletion of another valid category is the actual poor argument.
  2. you have failed to address Wikipedia:Deletion_review#c-RoyZuo-20250410210600-Auntof6-20250410204800: Wikipedia:Categories#What_categories_should_the_new_category_be_in? which requires Category:University hospitals in Germany to be in
    1. Category:Hospitals in Germany
    2. Category:University hospitals
    3. Category:Colleges and universities in Germany (notably, Category:University of Göttingen also contains only 2 elements Academics of the University of Göttingen University of Göttingen) (and the same goes for Category:Free University of Berlin and so on).
RoyZuo (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
@RoyZuo: Pinging you. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - The reason given for deletion was very much a valid one, If you object that much to deletion then create more articles so the category can be populated (POINTY I know), All of this time and energy bickering over the deletion could be better spent on making articles for that category. –Davey2010Talk 13:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  • endorse deletion the reason for deletion was valid, fr33kman 17:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 12:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 12:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Reinstate Animal cruelty in Simple Wikipedia now

I want to reinstate this article in Simple English Wikipedia. Can someone help me in solving this problem here now? 117.196.154.2 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@117.196.154.2 Your article Animal cruelty was Redirected to Cruelty to animals by admin Fehufanga. Because it was duplicate of already existing article. You can make constructive changes on Cruelty to animals. Happy editing. Bensebgli (Talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
We can move this article to that article now on. 120.56.109.76 (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@120.56.109.76 You mean to say you want to move Cruelty to animals back to Animal cruelty? No you cannot move this page. You need to request at WP:AN there an admin will handle this request. But you need to give a good reason for such proposal. Bensebgli (Talk) 02:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the title can be discussed in a move discussion. Thanks,--BRP ever 12:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 12:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Dr.Kamaljit Das

The author of the page has appealed at the sysop mailing list, please let us know if restoration is OK or not.--MathXplore (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion.
  • It claimed that the person was the 16th president of India, but there has been no president of India with that name and the current president is number 15.
  • The references were not reliable. The first one was to a site that is for sale. The second one (intended to support a statement that he set a record for being "the fastest man alive on the planet") linked to what is apparently the site of The Assam Tribune, but not to a specific article.
Therefore, I endorse the deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Closing with No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 12:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 12:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Devan Leos

Hello, I noticed the page of a notable actor and entrepreneur was just removed.  I was shocked by this because as an actor he's been in multiple shows such as Mighty  Med, Austin Alley, The Middle, he starred in Final Fantasy Game, and is a notable entrepreneur  now who continued to garner media coverage and notoriety. 


The closure here: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Devan Leos (2nd nomination) is controversial, With only one person saying to delete.


conversely, the first afd nomination: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Devan Leos Unanimously voted to keep


This article clearly needs to be reinstated, or the afd re-listed.--Scripfowl (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


Scripfowl (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  • overturn
Hi Im the one who create this page. Devan Leos deserves Wikipedia page because of notable roles in Mighty Med and Madea’s Witness Protection, Austin Alley and other major films. He had big coverage in reliable news sources. His work in AI (as a founder is notable and recognized in media) No reason for delete I also just found this source too:
https://www.distractify.com/p/2030-ai-world-in-five-years-artificial-intelligence-will-have-completely-transformed-everything
Also Elon Musk even recognized him: https://www.newsweek.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/elon-musk-disney-star-devan-leos-undetectable-ai-1962820
(I previously went to add new sources and noticed the page was gone...)
Due to notability, and no votes being cast in the deletion discussion, this page should be brought back...
2603:8001:1DF0:94E0:8C76:C584:3882:53D0 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Since this was a soft delete, I have restored the article and talk page.
@Hiàn: Pinging you since you opened the RFD. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi thanks... since Im IP editor I don't get notification. @Hiàn please give a few days before relisting afd (if youre going to do that), so more sources can be added. @Scripfowl please improve the page too if you can. 2603:8001:1DF0:94E0:8C76:C584:3882:53D0 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting a few days. Anon, a keep by an IP editor and someone with <10 edits is hardly an community consensus. Please also review the pages linked in the 2nd RfD nomination. en:WP:NBUSINESSPERSON tells us that notability is generally not inherited from the company except in very particular situations (this is not one of them). WP:NACTOR tells us that "several" "important" roles are needed, and I counted only one important role: Mighty Med. I invite any policy-based arguments that argue for inclusion. Finally, I invite you to review our page on conflict of interests in case it is applicable to you. Hiàn 03:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
That is to say, if it isn't abundantly clear, the subject is likely not notable on the basis of being a businessperson. He may be notable on the basis of being an actor. Hiàn 03:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
He starred in Media's Witness Protection as a lead role, he played the the brother of the main role girl in Austin and Alley, He played in Final Fantasy video game, he played a recurring role The Middle, he was a main role in grave secrets.
It's not that Devan is notable because his company is notable, but rather that his involvement and recognition in that company because it demonstrates that his career expanded to include notable achievements past entertainment, that were newsworthy enough to garner coverage from major outlets, AND that he founded that company which became notable (and arguably a semi-major part of AI detection research). If Leos was only a business person, he may not be notable? He's seemingly won awards and recognition for his non profit work too, so all of these things combined seem to make a fairly strong case. Scripfowl (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The page was restored and deleted again after a new request for deletion discussion. Thanks-BRP ever 12:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 12:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Can "The SuperSword Warriors (American animated series)" and "Baldi's Basics (The SuperSword Warriors)" be restored?

These pages were deleted by fr33kman i think yesterday or two days ago. His reason was that the pages are a hoax and he cannot find information on them from the internet. But for those who don't know, the topics are real. For both articles, i used one source relevant to the topic and you were supposed to focus on the affect of The SuperSword Warriors' phenomenon on these sources, which is enough to verify the topic. Here, just read this random source and focus on the affect: https://www.tripadvisor.com/SmartDeals-g57597-Chesapeake_Virginia-Hotel-Deals.html Leafchopper (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable, independent sources that show verification of notability. We can't be expecting the reader to do the work for us. If the topics are real then at best the articles were written as original research or essays, both of which are not allowed. Also please provide links to the deleted pages so people don't have to search for them. Best, fr33kman 18:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay Leafchopper (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
By the way, i just realized that thanks to you, maybe i can try again at making articles based on The SuperSword Warriors and trying to get it right. Can i use these sources from within The SuperSword Warriors' phenomenon for the first article?
1:The SuperSword Warriors - Tv Review | Common Sense Media
2:The SuperSword Warriors Are The Best | Screenrant
3:How is this 2020s series so good?! | OpeningNewsLetters.com
4:Cartoon Network introduces comedy series The SuperSword Warriors in 2021 | Screenrant
Also, i promise to try and include in depth coverage within the articles. Also, in case others don't believe the articles and try to have them deleted, i will use the Wait template and fill them in too that the topics are real on the talk page, also showing them the proof. Leafchopper (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Could you stop wasting everyone’s time by making up these hoax sources and claims of this show’s existence? CountryANDWestern (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay, these sources aren't acceptable. And articles based on this subject won't happen. Got that. But The SuperSword Warriors and their phenomenon do exist. Again, just try to read the source i found and focus on the affects of them on the source. I'll post it again.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/SmartDeals-g57597-Chesapeake_Virginia-Hotel-Deals.html
Now, read it and then truthfully tell me, did what i said actually happen? Or not? If not, then fine. I'll stop wasting your time. And i'll leave this site and all Wikipedias for good. Leafchopper (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Leafchopper: Trip Advisor has nothing to do with this. Even if it's did, though, it's not a reliable source. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Closing with no consensus to restore. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Auntof6 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Omukenkufu Shaman Ug

  • Endorse while I am unable to currently investigate the notability of the subject, the page did not include a claim of notability (which is required).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: The requester has been blocked as the sock of an LTA user. CountryANDWestern (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. No indication of notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • In that case, it's easy... -Barras talk 19:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 19:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Vijay Kanakamedala

Hello Admin,

It seems the subject has enough reputed sources from The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Hindustan Times, Cinema Express, The Hans India passes WP:GNG and per WP:ANYBIO, the movies that this director is known for has significant coverage, which is also cited in the articles. Request to review and restore it. 49.205.248.16 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I quick-deleted the page under 'A4 - notability'. Searching for the name on google, I find the EnWp article (since deleted, 'A5- created by a banned or blocked user, in violation of block'), IMDB, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter/X. The first two newspapers seem to be Times of India, and Hindustan Times. Are you sure that this is notability? Eptalon (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Eptalon, Thanks for your message. Well Considering Articles in the google search, he passes WP:GNG. First two newspapers seem to be Times of India, and Hindustan Times because they may recently published and in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 google pages we can find other sources aswell. If you see the Vijay Kanakamedala Simple wikipedia page you can see the supporting references from reliable sources. 49.205.248.16 (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Eptalon, Before the page vanished, I assumed the person deleting it would review and analyze the page and the attached sources, rather than jus checking it on google. 49.205.248.16 (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Taking a quick look at the deleted page brings me to the claim of them winning an award, which should make A4 invalid as winning an award is a claim of notability.
However, looking into the criteria and comparing the guidelines to the deleted page, I do not believe that they meet the notability criteria. As such, I believe it might be better to restore and send to RfD for a proper deletion discussion, where the notability of the subject can be properly investigated and a conclusion can be reached.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@FusionSub, Thankyou for your thoughtful assessment. I support your view. sending it to Rfd would allow a proper review and community input. 49.205.248.16 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I have undeleted the page. See the RfD... Eptalon (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The page was deleted with no comments in the RFD, and now the IP is back requesting review again. I think we are going in circle, at this point we should consider keeping it deleted or restoring it through this process. Thanks,--BRP ever 16:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you again @BRPever, for bringing this up. I was occupied with real-life commitments and couldn't participate in the RfD to present my points.
    I kindly request the admins to review the article and the references provided. Vijay has received two awards and one nomination. His work and direction have been recognized by reputable news outlets, and several reliable sources have cited his contributions to the industry. which passes, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.
    My intension is to not to delete genuinely notable people who would likely have an encyclopedic article now. I apologize if I made any mistakes in the process, and thank you for your understanding. 175.101.68.55 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • overturn a quick review shows a claim of notability so A4 was invalid and the awards received are not trivial indicating that notability is there as well. The deletion on enwiki was because it was created by a blocked user and not due to lack of notability. A G-search shows a basic level of coverage in the media. fr33kman 17:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    Hello @Fr33kman,
    Thanks for your feedback. @Eptalon initially deleted the page for A4, and after it went through DRV, it was sent to RFD. Eventually, @BRPever deleted the page.
    I just have a small concern—are admins not reviewing pages thoroughly before deleting them? Are we possibly lacking something in the process?
    Sorry, I just wanted to express what happened throughout the process. 175.101.68.55 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    The page would have been kept if someone had commented to keep the page on deletion discussion. If there are no comments, the page is procedurally deleted.-- BRP ever 18:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    @BRPever - If no one comments, is it up to the admin to review and analyze the page to decide whether to delete or keep it? If someone is genuinely notable but there are no comments in the RfD, can the page still be deleted?
    Also @Eptalon, if a page is tagged with A4, shouldn't we analyze the page and attached references? before deciding to delete it? Is it okay to just do a quick Google search and delete the page based on that?
    Sorry if i had said anything wrong, i'm just asking. 175.101.68.55 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    After a week of no comment that is how the process works. Any user, including the page creator can comment during the time page is up in RFD. At the end if there is no comment to keep, the page is deleted based on initial request. If there are comments, admin decides based on where the consensus is. Any closure against the general agreement would need a suitable explanation from the closing admin. Any disagreements with the closure comes to this page, where the initial decision can be overturned and the page can be restored if other users agree. It was a procedural closure.-- BRP ever 18:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with BRPever, it isn't the closing admins job to review the page before closing. If that we're to happen then they would be coming up with their own opinion and that's not how closing works. If no one comments it has always been the case that it gets deleted. If people want it kept then they have to put that in the discussion area. Otherwise it defaults to delete. fr33kman 19:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    One other point: if an RfD is closed with no discussion, that is considered a soft delete, and the page can be restored on request, no questions asked. Another RfD can always be started if anyone wants to. Therefore I am undeleting the page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 08:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Please restore Shaynolia page

The page that I have created "Shaynolia" was deleted for being deemed a fake and hoax. I can assure you that Shaynolia is a real micronation and it is just as real as Molossia. NewRepublicofEgypt (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

An you please provide a link to the deleted page because the only link is to this discussion here on DRV? Thank you. fr33kman 23:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy link to the deleted page: Shaynolia.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Shaynolia NewRepublicofEgypt (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Deleting admin here: The reasons I thought it appropriate to delete the article as a hoax were:
  • The only result in a search was the article here.
  • The two images that Commons has of the flag are up for deletion with the rationale that they are fictional. The only person disagreeing is NewRepublicofEgypt. There is a request for evidence that the place exists, but none has been provided.
Note: When a place or other topic is very new, there sometimes aren't any reliable sources yet to support an article. If the place is indeed real, it might be a case of needing to wait until there are such sources. But for now I don't see any. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I see. well i made another page, sources will soon come in. NewRepublicofEgypt (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@NewRepublicofEgypt: I deleted the page that you created under a different name. Do not create another page on this subject until this discussion closes. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
k my bad NewRepublicofEgypt (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • endorse there is zero indication of why this is notable. Anyone can create a micronations.wiki it doesn't make it notable. fr33kman 15:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 19:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Mark Chapman (cricketer)

Hi all! I am requesting restoration of page above which was deleted after an RFD. This player has played in several international matches being part of New Zealand's squad for the 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. He also has a lot of coverage if you look at enwiki page. I think it wasn't discussed properly in the RFD and deserves an entry. Thank you.--BRP ever 12:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't view the page and thus can't say in which state the article was when it's been deleted. However, the person seems to be notable and the WP:GNG reasoning of the RFD doesn't fit here. If the article is worth restoring, so do that, otherwise just create it. -Barras talk 13:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention anything to do with the World Cup and even if it did, did this person play a major or minor role in it. The article needs more references to establish notability. In the form that it was in I endorse deletion. fr33kman 15:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The page did have a cricinfo link displaying his stats and records. Unlike QD, in RFDs we discuss if the subject is notable beyond what limited information is in the page. I realize I was too late to save it, I will create page anew then.-- BRP ever 16:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and created a new page with added content. Thanks,-- BRP ever 16:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 16:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please restore So Political page

“So Political” is a culturally significant, independently recognized web series that provides satire-driven civic education and commentary on East African politics and society. It has amassed a loyal following, featured prominent guests and topics of public interest, and is frequently cited in local digital media and academic conversations on youth-led political discourse. Its deletion undermines the documentation of emerging African political media and voices.” KlassikNation (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. The article was written like a publicity piece. It was not in simple language. It had no references and only a minor claim of notability.
You say the series has been "independently recognized" and is "frequently cited." Recognized/cited for what? By whom? If it was for something notable, and there is a reliable source showing that, then using that as a reference might be enough to keep the article.
Things that do not establish notability:
  • Having a loyal following: any YouTuber's mother is probably a loyal follower
  • Having prominent guests: "prominent" is relative
  • Covering topics of public interest: that's pretty common, and what is public interest varies a lot
As for the deletion undermining anything: any article here has to show notability and have reliable sources. This article didn't do that. We delete articles for that all the time. It has nothing to do with the specific subject. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • endorse very, very promotional and deletion is not politically important fr33kman 15:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 18:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 18:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Please restore The Klassik Tribe page

The Klassik Tribe is a culturally significant collective that has received substantial, independent, and reliable media coverage in national and regional outlets. It has played a notable role in Kenya’s creative and social impact space through initiatives like The Radiance, environmental campaigns, music and arts projects, and collaborations with reputable brands and organizations. These activities and recognitions demonstrate that the group meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for music and cultural organizations. The deletion may have overlooked the depth of independent sources that verify the Tribe’s influence, relevance, and sustained public presence. We respectfully request a restoration and review in light of this verifiable evidence. KlassikNation (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Another article written like a publicity piece, in complex language and with no references. If there has been a lot of media coverage, that could show notability, but only if there are references in the article to show it. We can't evaluate sources that aren't in the article. Even the items in the External links section (which should be Other websites here) were just unlinked text. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Endorse As Auntof6 said the article was rather promotional, and in my opinion so is your rationale here.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I've also just noticed your username is rather similar to the subject. If you are related to the The Klassik Tribe (e.g Paid to create a Wikipedia article for them) I'd recommend looking at WP:COI.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • endorse having read the page it is very promotional and not at all neutral. Good decision to delete it fr33kman 15:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 18:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 18:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Fernando Nano Sosa

Hello. I would like to request the undeletion of the article "Fernando Nano Sosa". The page was deleted under A4, but I believe this was a mistake. The subject is a published comic artist and animator with international credits, including IMDb, Lambiek Comiclopedia, and others. There are external references, proper formatting, and interwiki links to other languages (German, Esperanto, etc.). I am willing to further improve the article if necessary. Thank you. --Pugliese3 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pugliese3: We never had an article called "Fernando Gabriel Sosa". However, we deleted one called Fernando Nano Sosa, so I have changed this request to that name. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
endorse non-notable comic artist, no major awards, no major international contributions to the topic.. Seems to be just another comic book artist. Needs to show why there should be an article and his credits don't pass the threshold for inclusion fr33kman 08:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: Pugliese3 is one of many sockpuppets involved in crosswiki promotion regarding "Fernando Sosa" (now globally locked). Johannnes89 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 18:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 18:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Wikipedia: Silvia Platsis

Wikipedia: Silvia Platsis intent use for main page, it’s accurate and not a false. Undelete pls. Silvia Platsis (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

information is accurate and intended for the main page, sorry about the editing challenges. I might need help with the editing page. thank you. Silvia Platsis (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Endorse deletion You created the page in our Wikipedia space, not the main space where articles go. Additionally, the page you created seems to be about yourself and does not show that you are a notable person who meeds our critera for having an article. See our notability guidelines for more details. CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment this user is blocked for creating this article in multiple locations including her home page. fr33kman 17:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 18:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 18:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Restore Bob Weinstein

I made that page because I hate his brother and I don’t like red links 70.120.45.122 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't valid reasons. Yes, Harvey is a sex offender as i learnt from actual Wikipedia, but you are meant to edit Wikipedia in a neutral way, focus on conducting business, and not focus on opinion. Also, no offense but the red links thing is pretty dumb. --GrainStain (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. The article contained only a statement that Bob is Harvey's brother. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • endorse. No real content and no notability of their own fr33kman 17:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 18:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 18:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Nyanzi Martin Luther

Nyanzi Martin Luther (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page) page to be improved by expert editors 41.210.147.13 (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

and also it claims notability ,more references will be added 41.210.147.13 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • endorse non-notable and you're supposed to create a article fully finished and not with "expert editors" to come and add citations later on fr33kman 17:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 18:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 18:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Undelete request

Please undelete "Santal people" article. I try my best to fulfill the article. Md. Rayan Alam Rifat (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It hasn’t been deleted. A user deleted most of the text from the article. Another user, not checking the history of the article, saw the basically empty article and tagged it for quick deletion. An admin noticed the history and reverted the blanking that had occurred. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Auntof6 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Danial Jafari

The page I have published for Danial Jafari is about a well-known Iranian child actor who has appeared in several films. He was honored at the Fajr Film Festival, one of the most important festivals in Iran in the field of cinema. He was awarded a degree in acting from Oxford University. For each section of my article, I had mentioned reliable sources in Persian. His IMDb profile is available. I request that the article be returned and I expand it.AronMazani (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@AronMazani: The article was deleted under WP:QD#A4. That requires that there be no claim of notability. However, there were claims of notability, namely mentions of awards the person won. Therefore I have restored the article. If it is to be kept, it will need to show better notability and have reliable sources supporting that.
@Fr33kman, CountryANDWestern: If you believe the page should be deleted, please use RfD. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6 Thanks, I received your message now, I will add a notable Iranian source called Sourehcinema. AronMazani (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I will bring it there. As I said in the Qd template, he didn’t receive the award; he accepted it on behalf of the film according to the source. CountryANDWestern (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
That was my understanding as well, hence why I felt there was no claim of notability fr33kman 00:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Closing this: article went to RFD and was deleted with no discussion: see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Danial Jafari.

This section was archived on a request by: --Auntof6 (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

City model

Gab1342 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

User has been blocked for continuously removing QD templates and creating the above page in various forms. Endorse deletion as it was not encyclopedic, just a made up thing for an art project at school. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment as I deleted this page I'll just point out it was about a fictional city made up as a school project and made no claims of notability and it was in no way encyclopedic fr33kman 21:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No consensus to restore. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Chromebook challenge

I have followed Daves advice and put this on DRV. G4 wasn't a valid ground of deletion. G4 is meant to delete articles that are similar or the same. COUNTRYandWESTERN already tried to speedy delete the article using G4, but it was quickly rejected because it wasn't similar. See the discussion at Talk:Chromebook challenge. This was a blatant misunderstanding of policy, and should be addressed.

I have already stated that the subject is notable as reliable independent sources cover the Chromebook Challenge. Please see this comment I made on the first AFD.

Also, please refrain from making speculative comments here. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL on English Wikipedia. TheGoofWasHere (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I was the admin that declined the deletion under G4. It has since been deleted by another admin. I have restored the page and said it must go to RfD fr33kman 01:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
@Fr33kman: Thanks! Also, the deletion page has closed, do I just remove the notice or...? TheGoofWasHere (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll have to reopen it, sadly I didn't notice that. Let me talk to the admin who closed it. fr33kman 01:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Can this be reopened? I note that they “add(ed)content from deleted page”, so I’m not sure how substantially different this article now is compared to what was deleted in the original RFD. CountryANDWestern (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I rephrased it a couple of edits later, its fine now TheGoofWasHere (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Administrator note: I reverted my action. RfD is open again. -Barras talk 07:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 07:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Qajar-Wahhabi war (1808-1811)

Deletion is challenged at Special:Diff/10265300 and Special:Diff/10266210. This is also known as Qajar-Wahhabi war or Qajar-Wahhabi War. Related RFDs can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Qajar-Wahhabi War and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Qajar-Wahhabi war (1808-1811), and the author claimed improvements since the last RFDs. Please let me know if restoration is needed. --MathXplore (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the newer version addresses the original concern of the RFD, mostly regarding sources. I think G5 deletion is valid considering repeated attempt to re-create this page, I would be inclined to restore it in userspace if it created by user with good history or if the user was not blocked, as it is, I endorse keeping it deleted.--BRP ever 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
endorse deletion basically like BRPever said, G5, the RfD was closed correctly fr33kman 22:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Not restored as per above. -Barras talk 19:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 19:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Vicente Costalago

The article has been deleted on the basis of "not being notable enough", yet he is the most prolific literary author in Interlingue since the language was created in 1922. I request the article to be undeleted. --Jon Gua (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the article. I don't see any particular claims of notability. It seems to be mostly a description of things the person published. There are also no reliable sources to show notability -- the things in the references section seem to be links to the person's works.
If the article is restored, it will need significant cleanup to be appropriate here. It wasn't in simple language. It used several templates that don't exist on this wiki. It had inline links to other websites, especially in the bibliography section.
I see potential in the article if notability can be shown and supported with reliable sources. However, in the condition it was in, I endorse deletion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Could you please explain how notability can be shown? I don't really understand what you mean. The sources for the article are mainly in Interlingue as he has published in that language, and some are radio interviews for his work in Extremaduran. Aren't those enough? Jon Gua (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jon Gua: The guideline for that is at Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
As far as I read:
If an academic meets any one of the following guidelines, with reliable sources, they are notable.
  1. The person's research has made significant impact in their area of study, as shown by independent reliable sources. > Published the only existing study on literature in Interlingue, where he gathered a bibliography of all published works in the language.
  2. The person is in a field of literature (e.g. writer or poet) [...] and meets the standards for notability in that art[...]. He is the most prolific (and one of a few) literary author in Interlingue. He is the only one that has published a drama in verse in the language.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work [...]. Same as the previous one. He is the only author that has published books in Interlingue, not just stories.
Therefore, I believe that person complies with the notability rules. Jon Gua (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jon Gua: It takes more than believing it, or even knowing it for a fact. It takes making statements about those things and supporting them with reliable sources. The only things that article had for references were links to some of Costalago's works, and at least some of those were dead links. But even if they weren't dead, that wouldn't show notability because it shows only that the works exist -- it says nothing about notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The problem is that the language is not widely spoken, and the main source for that author's work in Interlingue is that magazine. And I believe it is not realistic to ask for a statement like "his work is noteworthy" or something similar on a publication about the author, which it looks that is what you are asking me for. If the author is the main writer in the history of that artificial language, isn't that notable? The main author in the whole history of an artificial language that is still spoken and used is not notable enough? I don't understand what it needs to have. As far as I understand you are asking for things that don't exist, just because it is an artificial language, it won't have as many references as an author writing in English, I think we cannot demand the same for different cases like these.Also, the author was interviewed on the Extremaduran public radio for his publication in Extremaduran. Would that be good enough for his notability? --Jon Gua (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Sources can be in any language, so a source in Interlingue is acceptable as long as it supports a statement of notability. It's also not a question of how many sources there are, just that the sources are reliable and support statements of notability.
It's true that a statement like "his work is noteworthy" doesn't show notability. You need a more-specific statement with a reliable source to back it up.
It might be notable that he's the main writer in the language, but we need a reliable source supporting that. As for an interview, I'm not sure. It might depend on what's in the interview and whether there's a source for it that people can access.
You say I'm asking for things that don't exist. There are cases where there are no sources, or sources can't be found, and in those cases an article can't show notability and wouldn't be allowed to remain. It doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, just that notability can't be shown in an article. I hope that's not the case here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I have added the link where the interview can be accessed. Is that ok? Jon Gua (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Any source like that needs to support a statement of notability. The statement it's attached to just says that he published a book and was interviewed for it. Neither of those two things are notable. Whether the interview itself is a reliable source, I don't know, but the specific statement that is referenced doesn't show notability. If something is said in the interview that shows notability, and the interview is considered a reliable source, then that might be enough.
I know this is frustrating. It can be hard to learn what's required, and discouraging when people don't see a subject as worthy when you do. All I can tell you is what's required for articles, which is statements of notability supported by reliable sources. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I thank you for your patience and your explanations, as I am not aware of the rules here.
In the interview (on a programme that is aired on the Extremaduran public radio, like the BBC more or less) two excerpts of the book are read, the author explains how the book was written, the original idea, and one of the interviewers states: "A person from outside Extremadura had to come and write a book in Extremaduran so this is a lap on the wrist to Extremadurans, so that they might start doing something". More things are discussed, but I don't know whether they might be important for this case. Jon Gua (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I forgot to ask: Is that enough as a reference and for notability? Jon Gua (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the problems here is that the language is not notable itself. If it were then there would exist a range of reliable sources that show its notability and at least some of those would reference the author you're trying to write about. I really don't think you'll be able to show notability here ever. fr33kman 15:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand that Interlingue is not notable, but how about his interviews on the Extremaduran public radio? Extremaduran is a minority language, yet it is still spoken by 200,000 people. Or are the interviews not enough? Jon Gua (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
No, the interviews by themselves are not enough. Basically you need to have mentions of him in multiple newspapers, journals, books by others, citations in other people's academic papers and other such mentions. I know you really want him to have an article but I've done a lot of research and I just can't find enough reliable sources to make the page viable. It doesn't take away from his achievements but the main problem here is that the language itself isn't notable so anybody doing research on it isn't going to be notable either. Sorry fr33kman 21:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking your time and researching about that person. If there are not enough references, I understand that an article about him won't comply with the rules. Thanks for your patience and for answering and explaining everything to me and sorry for the inconveniences caused. Jon Gua (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Apparently no need to restore anymore. -Barras talk 19:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 19:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Why Are You Deleting my page please don't delete my page it is loved by me please

Please don't delete "Chandra Shekhar Majhi" page CS Shekhar Official (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Chandra Shekhar Majhi (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page) -Barras talk 19:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. In addition to not showing notability, which is reason enough:
  • The language was not simple.
  • What should have been an infobox was instead formatted as a collapsible table.
  • The page formatting was nothing like it should be: all the text was formatted as headings. The editor doesn't appear to know how to format an article for Wikipedia.
  • The "Note Of Editor's" section was spam.
-- Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
endorse deletion no notability made fr33kman 21:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Not restored as per above. -Barras talk 19:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 19:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Ayaz Syed

I am the creator of the article "Ayaz Syed". I understand it was deleted under G11 (advertising), but I have rewritten the page with a completely neutral tone and valid media references. The subject is a public figure with notable work in TV and film, with listings on MovieBuff, IMDb, and coverage in HMag and GoodTimes. I kindly request that the article be restored so I can correct the tone and resubmit under Wikipedia standards. 202.47.46.54 (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Not only that the article was spammy, I'd also say it didn't show notability. -Barras talk 19:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 12:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Idanim

The app is notable based on independent coverage in sources like Hindustan Times, The Statesman, and others.

The article is written in Simple English and avoids promotional content. It is similar to apps like Calm & Headspace. I kindly request review and restoration. Thank you!--Vipul619 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

'endorse deletion ' no claim of notability made fr33kman 02:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I found this app on various independent websites, and it ranks #1 in India when we search the word "meditation" on the Google Play Store. Sharing some links where this app was listed. Since Calm & Headspace have their Wikis, an app ranking #1 on meditation in India should also have its own Wiki. Not sure what further claim of notability is required. Can you be specific?
https://archive.adgully.com/idanim-s-saarthi-campaign-marks-a-new-era-in-mindfulness-143245.html
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/industry-danim-platform-to-help-workers-de-stress-this-meditation-app-promotes-mental-wellness-among-users-3162183/
https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-stories/idanim-becomes-indias-first-and-only-subscription-free-meditation-app-101713535662256.html
https://www.womenentrepreneursreview.com/viewpoint/5-women-centric-meditation-apps-redefining-well-being-nwid-4262.html
https://www.thestatesman.com/lifestyle/top-5-meditation-apps-to-reduce-festive-stress-1503237514.html
https://myndstories.com/indias-top-6-meditation-and-mindfulness-apps/
https://www.bwwellbeingworld.com/article/7-mental-health-apps-to-boost-your-happiness-and-calm-your-mind-474050
https://yehaindia.com/best-meditation-apps-indians-are-using-to-tide-over/
https://cxotoday.com/story/unplug-and-unwind-the-7-meditation-apps-for-people-seeking-mindfulness/
https://meditationmind.org/free-meditation-and-mindfulness-apps/ Vipul619 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
In addition to the above, Idanim has been covered in major Indian print publications as well.
Here's a collection of coverage - https://ibb.co/album/N9x1mp from Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala & Financial Express. These articles aren't printed by a single person's opinion and go through several checks before final print.
Request you to please consider these references and restore the article. Vipul619 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
overturn deletion Vipul619 (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
@Fr33kman @Auntof6 please restore the page based on above notable sources. Vipul619 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
@Barras please help here. Vipul619 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
@Vipul619: Please don't ping specific admins like this. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Wasn't sure what the next steps were here since I hadn't heard back from anyone for restoring the page. Vipul619 (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Endorse deletion: I don't see anything showing notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • X mark.svg Not done - page not restored. No consensus for that. No notability found. -Barras talk 12:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to contest this removal. There is no comment on the extra links shared and news article clippings shared which clearly highlight neutral coverage across Tier 1 publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipul619 (talk • contribs)

I guess Auntof6 saw the posted links and I did too. I still stand by the point that this is not notable. -Barras talk 09:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 12:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Chromebook challenge

The page was deleted at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Chromebook challenge (2nd nomination) and the arguments to delete made zero sense. GNG states that an article is most likely notable if the subject has coverage in reliable, independent, significant, and secondary sources. Which it does have. To quote myself here:

"It has coverage in reliable sources such as USA TODAY [13], NBC [14], CBS [15], and Axios [16]. Articles are in depth and direct."

There is no proof of the trend only having "local coverage". TheGoofWasHere (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 12:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Ashlan chidester

no deletion request Cloud899 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cloud899: There was a quick deletion request. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - no notability shown. -Barras talk 12:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 12:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Causes of the Armenian Genocide

Yes, i was firstly copied it from the original article, but i laterly simplified it. If it is wanted, i can simplify more. I request it to be undeleted. BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done @BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı: please make sure to review BE 1500 to help with your simplification. Also don't forget to provide attribution to enwiki, you can find out more at Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks :) BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 12:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Maritime science fiction

The article was reliably sourced and even the leading citation specifically used the term maritime science fiction in it's texts. The article qualified as a stub and a number of users contributed to it. Nobody supported the deletion besides the nominator. The argument "it was deleted from main English Wikipedia" was the article did not cite reliable sources. This entry was a DIFFERENT ENTRY from the one on English Wikipedia. Note: that main English Wikipedia has a list on Maritime science fiction media that was renamed to "List of Underwater science fiction media." But there were sources cited that clearly used Maritime science fiction and they were academic. They discussed maritime archeology. Taeyebar (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

PS users such as Fixature and J 1982 also contributed to the article and the list on Wikipedia as well as J's contribution on the Simple English Wikipedia. They both supported it as notable topic. Anyone can ask them. There is coverage for it.--Taeyebar (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion just as per the comments given on enwiki's AFD and DRV. -Barras talk 12:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Please review the sources properly. The first citation is from the Encyclopedia of underwater and maritime archaeology and it contains the term Maritime science fiction specifically. This is a reliable source--Taeyebar (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
PS the list was going to be deleted on English Wikipedia but it was saved because of consensus--Taeyebar (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  • endorse deletion this is not a recognized genre of sci-fi. It'd be different if it was renamed to "underwater science fiction" but that is not what the author intends as it seems they want to include on surface sci-fi or coastal sci-fi as well. fr33kman 23:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 11:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Saeed Fathi Rowshan

Dear @Barras

You have applied a deletion label to the published article. This message was supposed to be closed on June 25th. No comments had been submitted by anyone until this date. After the mentioned date, it was deleted with one comment.

But apart from this, my question is: Why should an article that is translated from a Persian article be deleted? Why was the source of my published article not taken into account? Why did you not edit a series of articles that I saw, and did not delete them, but only expanded them?

Milad Salehpour

Siavash Aghdaei

Articles that were weaker than mine.

Search my article on the Persian Wiki and you can see that it is a complete and verified article. I tried to publish a translation of this article.

Please reconsider my article Help me in the process of expanding this articleAjamLam (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The article didn't show notability as per our guideline. An uninvolved admin has deleted the article. I'd still say the article as it was here did not show notability. Other admins may review this. -Barras talk 19:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  • endorse deletion the article didn't show why the person is notable. What awards have they won, or articles in multiple independent sources are there. Decision to delete was correct fr33kman 23:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 11:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Akuma Saningong Deletion Review

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article Akuma Saningong https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/Akuma_Saningong_(2nd_nomination), closed as "Delete" on 30 June 2025.

I believe the article was deleted despite the subject meeting the General Notability Guideline (GNG), based on the following independent, reliable sources:

  • Inter Press Service (IPS) – a reliable, independent news agency featured a dedicated profile on Saningong:
 - https://ipsnews.net/business/2025/01/16/from-the-lab-to-the-world-stage-how-akuma-saningong-redefines-the-boundaries-of-possibility/
  • Scientific Publications in Peer-Reviewed Journals – Saningong is a co-author on multiple studies indexed in PubMed:
 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19074982/
 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29478084/
 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25645591/
  • TEDx Appearances – Saningong has given three TEDx talks:
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmCgzP7rrM4&t=5s
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8ix47WFQqw&t=3s
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNXME3K8P3M&t=12s
  • Additional Secondary Coverage:
 - https://greator.com/en/akuma-saningong/
 - https://www.hamburg-startups.net/kac-baut-startup-bruecken-zwischen-hamburg-und-afrika/
 - https://spirit-online.de/stichworte/dr-akuma-saningong

I believe the deletion may have overlooked the totality of these sources, especially the profile-level coverage in IPS and the combination of scholarly and public-facing contributions.

Request for Undeletion to Improve the Article

Given the additional secondary sources now identified and the willingness to improve the article with better referencing and structure, I suggest that the article be temporarily undelete and moved to my userspace for improvement.

This would allow for: - Proper integration of independent, reliable sources such as Inter Press Service (IPS) - More clearly organized citations and neutral tone improvements - Evaluation in draft form by other editors via Articles for Creation (AfC)

I welcome further input on how to best meet the General Notability Guideline and would be glad to collaborate toward a stronger encyclopedic article.

Thank you for your consideration.

.--Funtiberry (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion based on my arguments at the RFD and Auntof6’s expanded rationale for closing it as a deletion. I do not see anything in your request here that was not already considered at the RFD.
CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback.
Refer to the following link for more information: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Auntof6#Request_for_clarity_of_a_recently_closed_AFD.
To clarify, the core reason given by the closing admin (Auntof6) was that the additional sources, especially secondary ones that may help establish notability under WP:GNG, were not included in the article, but only mentioned in the discussion.
I have opened this deletion review precisely to request that the article be temporarily undeleted and moved to userspace, so that I can revise it properly and include these new sources within the article itself, as per the GNG standard.
This isn’t about re-arguing what was already considered; it's about taking the next step to address the reasons for the deletion and rectify the missing elements.
The article was deleted because the new sources were not used. I am now offering to include them properly formatted and compliant, but I need access to the content via undeletion into userspace to do so.
I appreciate your consideration.
@Fr33kman @Auntof6, please restore the page based on the above rationale. Funtiberry (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
That's not how this works. Deletion review is about whether or not the deletion was wrong based on the article as it was when it was deleted. If you have additional things to add to the article that would be able to prove notability then you need to recreate the article and add those things. We won't be able to restore the article as it is. fr33kman 07:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
@Funtiberry: Your statement "The article was deleted because the new sources were not used" is not accurate. I never said that the additional sources listed in the RfD would establish notability. I said, "Also, most of the sources you cited in the RfD were not in the article. Even if they could show notability, they need to be in the article." I expressed no opinion on whether the sources listed in the RfD would establish notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello Auntof6
To cut a long story short, as we are in the process of reviewing the deleted article, I have a question about it.
I remember there being about 15 sources/references listed.
During the first RfD, when you decided to 'keep' it, the author argued that the person requesting deletion should check those references and list the ones that are not secondary sources and independent of the subject.
And no one did!
I also went through them and they met GNG. The additional ones I researched also supported the subject's notability.
Now, since you have access to the deleted article, I am politely asking you to go through it as humanely as possible and tell me which articles are not secondary and independent of the subject.
I am grateful for your cooperation in this matter, as we are all acting in good faith. Funtiberry (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Since there have been concerns about my involvement in the two deletions, I think it would be better if I let others handle this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Auntof6,
I am writing to follow up on my previous message about the article that was deleted, Akuma Saningong.
As I mentioned, I'm looking at this from an editorial perspective.
Have you had time to go through the reference list?
If not, when will you have time to do so?
And if yes, how do we proceed?
@Fr33kman: This is also for your attention, since you are one of the admins involved in this case.
Thanks again for your time and cooperation. I am approaching this with respect for the process and for everyone's contributions. Funtiberry (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@Funtiberry: See above: I am going to let others handle this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Overturn deletion: The subject meets the GNG. 217.229.86.66 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • endorse deletion as it was the deletion was correct. fr33kman 23:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    Hello @Fr33kman
    Thank you for your comment.
    As you'll recall, this article was previously kept.
    If you are in favour of deleting it:
    Could you go through the 15 cited references and list all those that don't demonstrate notability?
    That would provide some clarity.
    It would make no sense to recreate the article only for it to be deleted again.
    Thanks for your cooperation. Funtiberry (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC) 06:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 11:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

K. Niranjan Reddy

Hello Team,

Requesting to restore the K. Niranjan Reddy page. The subject has produced and distributed several big-budget films and received awards, as supported by reliable sources and reputed news outlets, meeting WP:GNG. The enwiki page was deleted under G5, not due to lack of notability. 2406:7400:35:4F2D:E179:D3B1:E619:904 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

What are some of these awards and reliable sources? CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
@CountryANDWestern,
  • Reliable Sources :
[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
@fr33kman Requesting anyone to check this. 2406:7400:35:7B0A:603E:F923:4E65:1902 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 11:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Quickly deleted.

Wang Zhi'an and en:Wang Zhi'an; I didn't have enough time to understand/ to address the concerns. The page should have gone through a normal deletion process. Please restore and let someone select it for deletion again. Yilangderen (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yilangderen: Quick deletion here is like speedy deletion on English Wikipedia: it spells out conditions under which pages can be immediately deleted without discussion. It is one of the normal deletion processes here. This page was deleted under our quick deletion option A3. That option is for articles that have been transwikied here without simplifying the language. People who edit here are responsible for knowing and complying with the requirements for simple language -- that's what this entire wiki is about.
What would be the point of restoring the article just to let someone request deletion again? If you're thinking you could argue for keeping it, you can do that here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright then, thanks for explaining. I concede. Yilangderen (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 11:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Jan Lokpal Bill

I have no idea why this was deleted suddenly weeks after its creation. There were no concerns previously, and now I am unable to see the reasons since it has already been deleted (within 24 hours).--Shubhsamant09 23:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
It was deleted under QD A7 as being written by an AI. Please see WP:AI for more information fr33kman 23:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 11:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Ethan Mathias

Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Archives/2025 Media

Ethan Mathias (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

:Your reason here.--Mommabears26 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You previously deleted the simple wikipedia page for Ethan Mathias because he did not have notability.

This is incorrect. He has an active IMDB page for film projects: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11384776/

He is a paid performer with reviews in NYC: https://nitelifeexchange.com/ethan-mathias-performed-outside-the-lines-at-dont-tell-mama-with-a-line-drawn-firmly-to-broadway/

He has done many media interviews, the most recent being with Andrew Reed from England (photos/link are towards end of page) https://www.readontheradio.com/sample-interviews Mommabears26 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the page because on reading it again it seems I missed a claim of notability. I am going to nominate it for deletion via RfD because I believe that notability is not shown fr33kman 18:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 11:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

put back

I want the thing to be undeleted. 174.79.185.184 (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you want undeleted? You've no deleted contributions. Please see the edit notice when editing this page to request the deletion review correctly. -Barras talk 11:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Barras talk 11:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.kidzsearch.com/w/index.php?title=Deletion_review/Archives/2025&oldid=5906085"