User talk:Geschichte

I will usually reply on this page only.

Nomination of Sven Kloster for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sven Kloster is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Was this really necessary? Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Notifying you two weeks ago that I started an AFD two weeks ago? Yes, that's required. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to the AFD itself. I believe it was reasonably clear that nothing in the article itself indicated that an AFD was warranted, something that also reflects on the AFC reviewer. Geschichte (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking back on the edit history, I see why I made the AFD: You had questioned whether it would survive AFD. So I put it to the test. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your fantastic work in Afds! RossEvans19 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ross! Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Afd April Fools Day joke nomination

Hello there! I made a joke nomination about Gianluigi Buffon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2025 that, as we both participate in football AFD discussions, I thought you'd find funny (yes I look very desperate but it's still good humour) RossEvans19 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Satoshi Osaki for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Satoshi Osaki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satoshi Osaki until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fathi Aboud

The article Fathi Aboud has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

PRODs

Hello, Geschichte,

I'm one of the admins who regularly reviews the articles that you have PROD'd. Thanks for all of the work you've put in in this area over the past few years.

However, you often mention in a PROD tag if the article creator was later blocked. Unless they were a sockpuppet, this fact doesn't have much relevance as to whether or not an article should be deleted. It is more helpful to focus on issues of notability or verification rather than the character and status of the editors who worked on an article years ago. Since you tag so many articles for Proposed deletion, I thought I'd pass this along. Thank you for all of your contributions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed delection of Artan Thorja

Hi Geschichte, I have removed your proposal for deletion since the player clearly meets the criteria for notability in football, having played for four teams in fully professional leagues. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 12:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Those criteria do not exist anymore. I will nominate it for WP:AFD when I have time later. Geschichte (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Both WP:FPL and WP:FOOTYN are defunct. If that's the only reason for keeping Thorja then I think we should look at deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Olgun Karamanoğlu

Hello, Geschichte. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Olgun Karamanoğlu".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vedat Vatansever

Hello, Geschichte. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Vedat Vatansever".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Lol

Heap. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Funmilola Ogundana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Funmilola Ogundana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funmilola Ogundana until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Miloš Brnović

Hello! How are you?

I requested the article be deleted due to a lack of significant coverage, but you removed the tag. I've contacted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Montenegro to find out if the country has any news media, as SIGCOV is difficult to find for public figures from the country, but I haven't received a reply. It's like when dealing with sportspeople articles from North Korea.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It probably has to do with Montenegro's extremely low population, only over 600,000, plus being a young nation. Of course, Iceland is even smaller, but they have been a nation-state longer, are close to the UK and the US, etc. That being said, Brnović definitely has coverage, a good deal of it was routine of course. Sifting through all the coverage would require some finer-tooth combing and seems like somewhat of a WP:BURDEN. To clean up players in the Russian league system, my personal choice would be to start with the many stubs about players who only played a few games on the second and third tier. Geschichte (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

hello

Hi @Geschichte, @AnonymousScholar49 here. Respectfully, I think the first part of your comment here is stretching the limits of civility a bit. We're all Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Regarding the AfD, I see your point with the levels of competition and the lack of sources. Thanks, AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You have a point here, and I will stay collected and address the compound of disruptive editing at ANI when the time comes. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I came here to say the same thing. I do not want to see anyone catching blocks over this. Please watch your words. Also, Habst has committed to stop posting !votes like that. Toadspike [Talk] 06:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Henry Banda

The article Henry Banda has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't find coverage, fails SPORTSCRIT/NATH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JayCubby 00:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

PRODs

Hello, Geschichte,

I realize that you are very active on the project in the deletion processes, particularly tagging articles for Proposed Deletions. But I have a request for you. Even though you tag dozens of articles, especially articles on sports figures, for PRODs, I need you to treat each one as an individual article and point out how each one fails Wikipedia policies and guidelines and not treat this as a mass tagging effort.

For example, even though User:Nameless User seems to have created a lot of subpar articles, the fact that an article was created by Nameless User is not, in itself, a good enough reason why the article should be deleted. Even if you end up using the same deletion rationale repeatedly, please offer a policy-based statement on why an article should be removed from the project that is not based on the identity of the editor who created or contributed to the article.

I'm sorry if this ends up creating extra work for you but as one of the handful of admins who reviews PROD'd articles, I prefer not to untag articles because I have questions about the deletion rationale. I trust your judgment, I just think that a rationale that is based on WHO edited an article can always be challenged by having other editors work on the article. This is in contrast to a subject and policy-based deletion rationale where the subject is deemed unnotable, then it doesn't matter on who edits an article, the subject doesn't merit an article. Make sense? Thank you for all of your many, many contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Re: Haris Zahirovic AfD

This article would not have been created today. What do you mean? Is it based on my statement? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it is based on the fact that wikipedians used to create thousands of one-sentence entries on footballers, exclusively sourced to databases, just because the player appeared in 1+ games in a "fully professional league". This was the pratice at the time, but not anymore, and now we have to remove them. At various times, someone even snuck several second tiers and even third tiers into the list, leagues that I doubt have ever been "fully professional". Geschichte (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Working together on PRODs and AfDs?

Hi @Geschichte, I have genuine great respect for your body of work here and hope it's OK that I humbly reach out.

I know that you've taken issue with some of the sourcing I've added over the past few months or how I've treated the notability of smaller championships, and I respect that. I hope we can make this discussion not about that.

I was wondering if you have any ideas for how best to handle the hundreds of recent athletics PRODs and AfDs at a rate higher than usual? For example, it looks like there 13 currently open athletics AfDs as compared to usually just one or two at once a few months ago, plus hundreds of recent PRODs. The issue isn't the PRODs per se, but more that the rate is such that world XC gold medalists or Ethiopian middle-distance national champions are getting caught in the mess, and the significant editing labor required to contest them could be better spent improving the encyclopedia.

I was encouraged by the volume of discussion on my VPP post, but was discouraged that no consensus was reached before it was archived. Would you be open to taking this to ANI or some other venue? I'm curious about your thoughts. --Habst (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have some conflicting opinions on this, some supporting you and some not as much. On one hand, sending the articles through PROD should cease for the foreseeable future, because PROD is for "uncontroversial deletion" - they are often not entirely "uncontroversial" and most end up not getting deleted. I think we agree here. For one, BLAR would be better than PROD, and I don't know if you agree on that. On the other hand, getting articles deleted through PROD rather than AFD makes it significantly easier to WP:REFUND them when the time is right. I personally had a large swathe of articles prodded in 2021, later slowly recreating them with good sources (which they did not have before). That is a net gain for Wikipedia.

Libstar does show consideration in withdrawing some nominations for athletes that are clearly notable, but mostly there are disagreements on "clear" notability... I'm growing weary of the PROD-AFD cycle, though, admittedly leading to a couple of outbursts. I have also voiced support for the idea of del-nom-limits, though I'm not certain if the current rate would exceed that limit. I would also support an instant draftification solution, where the one-sentence stubs could linger. Most of all, we should aim for not repeating the same discussion over and over again, which wears and tears on everyone.

An equally important fact is that the Lugnuts articles were created with no quality whatsoever, and as such many of them verge on being directly misleading, which should not be allowed to stand. This pertains to almost all sports, though, and not just athletics. I find it rewarding to expand some of them in relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, but only at a rate around 0-3 per month. Geschichte (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Re: BLAR, User:Ingratis has been doing this for some of the recent PRODs and I haven't contested any of the times they've done this (although I will say I prefer if categories are left on the redirect so that our Olympian category tree is complete).

I think that mass draftification is the only thing you propose that I might be against (depending on the meaning of "instant"), because drafts only last six months untouched while some of these subjects are documented in sources it would take years to access.

Would you be willing to make a post at ANI asking for a pause on the Olympian PRODs or AfDs by the user you mentioned? I would try to do it myself, but I was asked to not post on their talk page again so I want to respect that. --Habst (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I note your comment about cats on redirected PRODs. I don't have any strong feelings about it but could I suppose go back and add (some of) them to the articles I've redirected, since you see a use for it. There are relatively few since I've only been doing it since February of this year. I'll make the point that it's far easier to resurrect a redirected article than to get a deleted one refunded, and that of those articles I've redirected AFAIK none have been deleted whereas many of those which have been de-PRODed have been, since they invariably go straight to AfD, so if your aim is to buy time for in-depth research your best course is not to de-PROD on the basis of flimsy sources but to redirect. I would have commented on this far earlier but assumed that you enjoyed the battles. But at the end of the day it's up to you. Ingratis (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't think you need to go back and add the categories right now as someone else could always do it and there weren't that many cases. I enjoy improving articles, but not the ensuing battles. I'm not so sure that redirecting will always result in higher rates of SIGCOV being found for two reasons:

1. AfDs are more visible than redirected articles where theoretically everyone has the common goal of finding sources within a week, while redirects can be forgotten; and

2. Even if an article is deleted at AfD instead of redirected, I don't think there would be any opposition to a proposal to just recreate all deleted Olympians as redirects because redirects are cheap.

Regardless, I'm curious if you would you be willing to make the ANI action then? --Habst (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Article improvement is a question of dedication, someone has to be interested and willing to spend more than 45 seconds on creating an article, for it to be a good addition to Wikipedia. As Lugnuts' writing did not possess any of those qualities, it's no harm in waiting until the right person comes along.

I am unfortunately not comfortable with starting an ANI thread on this topic. Geschichte (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that I think this would probably be best somewhere other than ANI, which is mainly for serious behavioral issues warranting sanctions and/or blocks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11, what do you think would be best then? --Habst (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I would just proceed to ignore most of the Lugnuts entries. A quick look to see if they achieved more than a last place in some heat, and just move on from the many ones without clear credentials. Not get involved and invested in every single individual, Wikipedia offers other worthy tasks to spend time on. Some removed articles may be recreated in due course. The various paper archives might be digitized in our lifetime, they might not, there is much to do with sources that are available, including improving articles on the non-Western world and women. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

"articles on the non-Western world" That's most of what has been getting deleted/redirected lately. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I know, in the cases where the referencing situation is untenable. On the other hand, lots of articles on people about whom there are sources are waiting to be created or expanded, one example being Jamaa Chnaik. She has actually been a prolific competitor during a 10-year period, having several verifiable and strong claims to notability. Another example is Houria Moussa. Geschichte (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Not entirely sure... I just know that I don't think this is an ANI-type discussion. Maybe AN? VP seemed like the best option to me, then I realized that was already tried – I don't feel like there's any way we can get consensus on this stuff... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but BeanieFan is right about ANI and I wouldn't want to raise this there, or anywhere else. I hate to agree with Geschichte but probably all you can do, given the implacable opposition that these articles now face, is to be more hard-nosed in picking your battles. Please don't allow yourself to become completely demoralised - there's only so much you can do. Ingratis (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

"I hate to agree with Geschichte" - now that's a quote for boosting my morale :) Geschichte (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for the foot in mouth - I seem to be unable to avoid them, which is why I rarely take part in discussions. But I think you saw what I meant! Ingratis (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Request

Hey, could you also check the GNG on Marcelo Russo, Óscar Daza, and Manuel González (football manager). Thanks. Luis7M (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a linkrot problem here. Dead links. I would nonethless say that Óscar Daza looks very thin. @BrazilianDude70 writes very well, but may have jumped the gun too early here. In my mind Daza unquestionably fails WP:SPORTCRIT - managing in one match is simply not notable. Being that nearly all coverage came on the same day, Daza fails WP:BLP1E too. I would like to hear from the "Dude" before anything is done, though. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I merely created all three of them because at the time, we were basing GNG on WP:NFOOTY. If you feel these articles should be deleted, go ahead. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@BrazilianDude70:, are you nuts?? You currently have 2,183 articles with ZERO deletions!! You are probably the only user on Wikipedia who can claim to have +2,000 articles with ZERO deletions, so why in the seven hells would you give the green light for someone to delete three of your articles?? Luis7M (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, you were the one who brought it up, Luis. I suggest considering mergers then (or just keeping them for now). The only problem then would be WP:UNDUE, but for instance, Daza is certainly worth mentioning in Club San José, and if the latter article was expanded, the UNDUE issue would cease. Geschichte (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I brought it up precisely because I wanted to break Dude70's streak. I was expecting him to put up a fight, not to straight up give the green light for someone to delete those articles... Luis7M (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Luis7M: I honestly fail to understand why you're doing this ("I wanted to break Dude70's streak"). Again, if you feel like these articles shouldn't belong here, feel free to put up an WP:AFD for them and let others decide. I edit for the sake of this encyclopedia, keeping what should be kept here, not to create a "streak" or something like that.

@Geschichte: I've gathered what I could to increase a little bit of references on those three articles, but if you guys still feel these articles do not pass WP:GNG, I'd say delete them. Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@BrazilianDude70: "I don't edit to create a streak", how is it possible that someone with that kind of mentality was able to create the greatest undeleted streak in Wikipedia?? Luis7M (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Luis7M: Are you here to actually improve something or just to nitpick or insult others? If it's the latter option, I would rather stop talking to you, please. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"put up a fight" - I don't want to be part of any fight. This is turning weird. Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Luis, I'm not sure whether I'm stating something obvious to you: people have different motivations for contributing here. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@BrazilianDude70: Nitpicking is fine, but insulting? I don’t believe I have insulted you... If you felt so, then you have my sincerest apologies.

“Are you here to actually improve something”, well… these three articles are now better sourced than they were yesterday, so…

@Geschichte: Marcelo Russo and Óscar Daza still don’t meet GNG, so please start an AFD, so that the community can decide whether to keep, redirect, or delete.

@Robby.is.on: yes, of course.

By the way, since we are all gathered here, I would just like to boast about the fact that one of my articles (Juan Astorquia) is currently enjoying a 24-hour stay in the main page (DYK).

Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You should take pride in Juan Astorquia being featured. It's a good article. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Juan Astorquia is not a featured article. It is only GA.

Hmm... if I nominate him to FA, do you reckon it will pass? Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I meant that it's featured on Wikipedia's front page, not FA. I have no idea whether it would pass, I have too little experience in assessment. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Tor Åge Larsen moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Tor Åge Larsen. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Per request at WP:REFUND. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 6 § Burkinabe

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 6 § Burkinabe on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hassan697 (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christina Kokotou

The article Christina Kokotou has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The World Destubathon Invite!

Hello there Geschichte! Dr.Blofield is running the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon - I thought i'd invite you as your work on Wikipedia is wonderful! :)) RossEvans19 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Årum

The article Årum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No WP:SIGCOV, unreferenced for close to twenty years now, none of the sources on the Norwegian article work or establish notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Coeusin (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Bear Hill

I totally understand why you would propose this for deletion, since it only had one source, zero allegations of notability, and no obvious sources on Googling. However, I went to college nearby (SUNY New Paltz), so I'm familiar with the area and knew where to look a little deeper. I hope that you agree that I have shown notability, but of course you are free to go to WP:AfD to get community feedback. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mariusz Błażej

The article Mariusz Błażej has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:GNG, sources are only databases. Only 16 first league matches

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FromCzech (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Grange Hill (New York)

I looked by various searches for any sources AfD found nothing. However, it shares a name with several other hills in Scotland, Ireland, etc. This hill is probably notable because it blocks direct access by road and railway between Utica and Binghamton, New York. Don't be surprised if it gets deprodded. Just a heads up. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to let others deal with this one. Most of your prods are reasonable. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Steuben Hill and Hasenclever Hill

Steuben Hill and Hasenclever Hill are a single massif. Steuben Hill is certainly notable: it's a state forest, it's the geological source of Herkimer "Diamonds" (actually quartz), and I've been there. It's also less notable, as with other hills in Upstate New York, as the thing that prevents people from driving directly from one place to another. I'm going to merge them into Steuben Hill and source it in the next 24 hours, without objections. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I redirected three titles to Steuben Hill, to create one decent stub. I also added many links and three citations. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There are now five redirects to this page, so deleting it now will created dead space. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

2 more notable hills

I deprodded Mohegan Hill and Waiontha Mountain, both of which have sources on Google Books. I'll work on adding reliable sources in the next few weeks. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Cláudio Braga

Hi there, I am fairly new to creating/editing on Wiki and this is my first page on the site. I ask you why you have rejected my article for a player that doesn’t have a page yet, I am doing this website a favor by saving more experienced editors time by creating this page. If it could be possible would you be able to give me pointers on where I need to improve the page for it to be accepted, you would really be helping me and saving me time from re-editing and resubmitting it for the 6th time. Thanks a lot DanielEllis22 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Cláudio Braga exists. Could you clarify which (deleted) article you are referring to? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It is a draft, which would be located at Cláudio Braga (footballer, born ...) if accepted in the future.

Unfortunately, DE22 you have not really been saving time for anyone, firstly with the five quick resubmissions - secondly with the errors found in the article and its lack of references. The article needs substantial sources covering Braga as a person. You also have to forget Transfermarkt for the future, it is not considered reliable. Please take a glance at a reasonably developed article for more pointers as to what a page should look like. Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks mate, you’ve really helped me out. You’ve been a great help! Hopefully soon enough I can finally get my article published, but that will probably take a wee while longer. Thanks again DanielEllis22 (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but in the meantime we now have seven rejections of the same article. A new record? The article is still not close to acceptance in any aspect, be it writing, formatting or sourcing. Did you not read or understand what I wrote about "substantial sources covering Braga as a person"..? Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit is shocking to me, Daniel. He never played in the Eliteserien. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi mate, this is really just a school project for my graphic communication class. Really isn’t a need for the aggressive messages as I am just a wee lad, maybe since you apparently know a lot about Cláudio Braga you should create a page for him. I was only looking for help but I guess insulting me is all you can do for me. Thanks a bunch and good day! DanielEllis22 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Winterthur places]]

The articles Niederfeld (Winterthur), Sonnenberg (Winterthur), Sennhof (Winterthur), Reutlingen (Winterthur), Waser, Talacker, Hegmatten, Ricketwil, Rossberg (Winterthur) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of what the relevence is here, long standing maintenence tags

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nayyn (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mopeli Molapo

Hi @Geschichte, I was going to post this in the AfD but decided to leave it here in talk space to not post in an AfD of an athlete with low sourcing.

I have a lot of respect for your contributions so please ping me if I'm being addressed in AfDs in the future, because I might not have seen your mention of me otherwise.

I don't think the AfD nomination statement is correct, it isn't a "contested draftification" that has anything to do with me because I never draftified or even requested to have this in draftspace. Drafts only last six months without edits, so the time wouldn't have been indefinite anyways. I actually didn't see this article at all before it was PRODed and subsequently deleted, I only saw it was deleted via article alerts and I wanted to see if there were sources so I requested its undeletion to take a look, which is a valid use of WP:REFUND.

I have always accepted consensus and would never try to game the system in any way. User:UtherSRG correctly advised me in Special:Diff/1295724180, "Please don't request restoration with intention of submitting to AFD. PROD/soft deletions are easier to revert than hard deletions."

So yeah, I think there is some misunderstanding because I requested a REFUND just to see the article for the first time, not to keep it indefinitely on Wikipedia or for any ulterior motive. --Habst (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Your combined actions point to a motive to have no entry regarding athletics removed, ever, and that the pages stay "up" in any way possible. "Wanted to see if there were sources" is not a not a valid use of REFUND, since sources are found via search engines and reading reference works, not by looking at deleted articles - which everyone knows contain no information whatsoever that's not copied from Olympedia. Another way you gamed the system was at "2020-21 in 60 metres", making up a novel reason to restore the article as a "working list" for an inactive Wikiproject; having gained no support for that solution when airing it during the AFD. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Geschichte, I promise you I don't believe that no athletics entry should be removed ever or that they should all stay "up". I actually think many should be removed so we can focus on improving the most notable ones. When I say "Wanted to see if there were sources", I literally mean that I wanted to see if anyone had added prose-based sources to the article before it was deleted (I had never seen it during the PROD period due to being busy IRL), other than the standard Sports-Reference. (In this case, it happened to be only a Sports-Reference stub, but I had no way of knowing that beforehand.) Sometimes, people add sources to an article that I couldn't have found on Google. That's a valid use of WP:REFUND.

Re: inactive, I'm trying to make WP Athletics more active and I actually would like to humbly ask for your help to do that because you are a very respected editor who is very knowledgeable about athletics as well. I hope you understand that I have no way of controlling how other people view my edits to construct some agenda that I promise doesn't exist; I can only try to make my edits and explain my perspective in my own words on talk pages.

So with that said, can you please remove "gaming the system" from your AfD statement or at least link to this conversation so that people can understand? It's upsetting to me because that's not what I'm doing and I don't think it's a good-faith characterization of my editing. --Habst (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"many should be removed so we can focus on improving the most notable ones"! Name five, please. Geschichte (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Geschichte, I have to say this reminds me of the "Oh, You Love X? Name Every Y" meme. Anyways, I'm in favor of deleting the many by-year Category:Nations at the World Athletics Championships for non-medal-winning countries and using the tables in overview pages instead. I often remove biographical articles (more than five of them) myself by redirecting them. I have never claimed to be an inclusionist on Wikipedia (though I am an inclusionist in other aspects of life i.e. in social settings). If you have questions about any particular article, you can always ask me.

As I said, I can't control how others interpret my editing patterns, the only thing I can do is continue to do my best work in good faith. With that said, can you please edit the AfD statement? --Habst (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The only thing you should do is to edit according to consensus and represent reality, not conduct novel interpretations of policy and sources, and things will be fine. Geschichte (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Geschichte, I agree with that 100%. Given that, can you please consider editing the above statement? I don't think saying "gaming the system" is properly applying WP:AGF and that was also never what I set out to do. I understand that the AfD has closed, but I would appreciate an edit or clarification on the AfD talk page. --Habst (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Mohegan Hill

I did another search and found out that the "Google hits" are for a different location in Connecticut. If you wish, you may nominate this at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vlastimil Ryška

The article Vlastimil Ryška has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:GNG. Non-notable footballer with only 30 caps at professional level.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FromCzech (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of Michael Puckerin

The article Michael Puckerin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No SIGCOV, mentioned in passing quite a bit but insufficient.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Puckerin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Puckerin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ronald Dassen

The article Ronald Dassen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability with a WP:BEFORE check. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nagol0929 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gabriel Ortiz

The article Gabriel Ortiz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The biography lacks information and has no references

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Periklis Amanatidis

The article Periklis Amanatidis has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ApexParagon (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gbemie (2nd nomination)

You really need to notify article creators about AFDs! GiantSnowman 08:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You really should notify creators when you take an article to AFD, really poor form not to do so! GiantSnowman 17:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jiang Bo (runner)

The article Jiang Bo (runner) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

Hello Geschichte. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Oleksandr Protsyuk, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Pro footballer is a credible calim of importance. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Just letting you know I tagged Nicola Campinoti for speedy deletion (which you proposed for deletion) because I thought it meets criterion A7. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And, of course, in case speedy deletion is declined, I left your PROD in place. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Update: CSD got rejected, so your PROD continues. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification

Check this out please: [[1]] Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

No LLM

Hi you left a No LLM at my talk page I would like to clarify it was an error, what I did was I wrote 1 response and copied the response to the other articles as well since they all got nominated for deletion all together, also we just had a discussion about using AI and I do not use AI never at all ok, I like to write I write of my own what I did was copy the most resonated parts of my response if that is not allowed I apologize and it won’t happen again, anyways I just came here to say this thank you so much for alerting me :) Meio2934 (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sock strike

Greetings! I was wondering about this sock strike. Is there a discussion about this sock? I couldn't find one. I don't doubt the veracity of your strike, but I also have no doubts about closers' ability to identify and discount or disregard a nonsense !vote like this one. Thanks for any feedback. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It was posted at WP:AIV, but it's a sock of Alon9393 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Really persistent banned user. Geschichte (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I see now, thank you! I didn't before, since I was looking in the wrong place... Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Domm (film)

Thanks for closing the AfD. Did you miss the WP:HISTMERGE issue?—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll ask on AN for a sysop volunteer to sort it out.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)