Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|France|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to France. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for France related AfDs

Scan for France related Prods
Scan for France related TfDs


France

[edit]

Eduard Beltran

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Article relies on self-published profiles and routine listings. Per WP:BEFORE I also didnt find anything LvivLark (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geniocracy

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

I found this page from the recently deleted page Noocracy and I was thinking they could be combined but as I did more research into this page I found that there aren't independent sources to back it up. I think a redirect to Raëlism or perhaps some amount of merging should be done instead of purely deleting the page. You can find the amazing Aliens Adored book to read the only major source I could find about the topic and its pretty light itself. Moritoriko (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote keep, as the person who tagged this with "sources exist", but the article isn't in a great state, so I would also be fine with merge. Aliens Adored does have sigcov of the idea, but there is also sigcov in several other books in academic journals, like Alien Worlds [1], The New Heretics [2] (same author as Aliens Adored but worth considering in combination) Urban's 2015 book [3], a full page in Mayer's 1993 book [4] analysing the idea, this article [5]. Lots of other shorter mentions too [6] [7] [8] [9]
This idea also garnered the Raelians specific criticism and was involved in some of their legal proceedings, and is the main reason they lost a pretty big court case I believe [10] [11] lots of news coverage that mentions it [12], criticism in various anti-cult books e.g. [13]
All in all, it does pass GNG, but the article isn't very good so a redirect/merge wouldn't be a horrible idea. Strongly oppose deletion proper. Note: in French, which most coverage on the Raelians is in, it is "géniocratie", so if anyone would like to do a further search you should try that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned I think deletion should be off the table but I think that this article which tries to exist half about the book with the same title, and half about the system (which only appears in relation to Raelians) is giving undue weight to something that is a small facet of their beliefs and un-used by anyone else. Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also thanks for finding french sources. Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't object much to a merge, but I do think it technically passes GNG. It's close enough where there is wiggle room per WP:PAGEDECIDE, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Goffi

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

Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Military, and France. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per the coverage below, the subject meets WP:GNG:
    • 462 words of coverage: Guérin, Emmanuel (30 August 2011). ""Ouvrir le débat sur la morale des armées"". La Provence (in French).
    • Some independent coverage of him (the rest of the article is an interview): "DRONES on the battlefield". Winnipeg Free Press. 28 January 2015.

      Emmanuel Goffi has dedicated his life to examining the ethics of the use of force -- first as an officer in the French air force for 22 years, now as a doctoral student and University of Manitoba lecturer in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies. Goffi will be speaking Friday on drones and the future of war during the 31st annual U of M Political Studies Students' Conference running today through Friday. The forum on politics, defence and security will have as its focus, "The Legacy of Great Wars: Marking History and Humanity."

    • Around 223 words of coverage on him: "Interview - Emmanuel R. Goffi". E-International Relations. 21 February 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2025. [Removed quote.]
    • At least 34 words of coverage on him: Manroubia-Porteous, Jean-Baptiste (2018). La Persistance du Recours à la Force à Travers la légitime défense Internationale: Le Cas de la légitime défense Internationale Invoquée Contre des Actes de Terrorisme (in French). Paris: L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782140057700. Retrieved 26 October 2025.

      Emmanuel Goffi est un capitaine de l'armée de l'air française , spécialiste des études de sécurité et des relations internationales . Il est actuellement enseignant chercheur à l'Université de Manitoba au Canada et chercheur associé au...
      Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The text from E-International Relations appears to just be a standard biographical note that would often be provided by the author or based on what their own institutional profile page says about them, rather than being written independently by a journalist. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck accordingly. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kael-Florent Montout

[edit]
Kael-Florent Montout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He just has one appearance at Ligue 2 for Vannes [14]. Otherwise, he only played in Guadaloupe and in the lower divisions of France, without any WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Rezgane

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

All of the references in the articles are transfer and match reports, i.e. routine coverage. A web search didn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Databases worldfootball.net and Soccerway don't even list him. Fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that this page barely passes WP:GNG. Based on which WP:SIGCOV-grade sources? I searched and didn't find any. You did? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user posted two equally vague keep opinions in short time. @Filmssssssssssss, you are supposed to tell us which sources. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I thought the sources listed the user listed on the page. Switching to Delete. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Reyn

[edit]
Jean de Reyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability beyond a single public domain source. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. This is not how and why articles should be nominated. gidonb (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borlet

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

Single, non-publicly accessible source. Googling to find other sources only results in sites which link back to this same page. No WP:NMUSIC or WP:V Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Minor but notable figure, with highly authoritative source. A web-only search will not produce acceptable results in this area. It should not have been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists which is for visual artists only. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate a little more as to how it meets our notability standards? Is there really WP:SIGCOV? The very short stub essentially says "We know very little about him, including his name and identity. We can confirm he composed between 1 and 7 compositions." Is this really enough to support a stand-alone article? I'm struggling a bit to see the encyclopedic value of a short stub so devoid of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't normally apply exactly the same standards to medieval and earlier figures as to contemporary ones. The article probably contains everything that is known about him, which obviously is very little indeed. He was considered important enough to be included in the standard reference work, which in itself is probably enough for notability. There are thousands of comparable examples. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that its not likely to come across a 2025 New York Timess feature on a subject like this, but I'm also not convinced that mere mentions like that are enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Are you alluding to some guideline I'm unfamiliar with or something? Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His own entry in the standard encyclopedia on the subject is not a "mere mention"; it's just that next to nothing is known, so the biographies there and here can't be any longer. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. I'll reword my stance accordingly: I don't believe an entry in a standard encyclopedia is enough to establish any sort of notability standards, particularly when said entry is devoid of any real substance because nothing is known. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think notability is substantiated here. I checked GScholar just now and the mentions for Borlet are essentially all the same as the mentions for Trebor (composer) because they're believed to be the same person. Therefore at the very least I think a merge with Trebor is in order, but given that even the sources I can find for that article are essentially "some compositions exist which are attributed to someone called Trebor" I don't think we have notability in a Wikipedia sense here at all, so I think deleting both Borlet and Trebor (which I've also made an AfD for) makes sense. Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is where I'm leaning too. I could technically see creating a redirect to Trebor, which pretty much already covers the (very little) verifiable information about Borlet, but the argument for Trebor's notability is pretty weak too. There's definitely not enough here for 2 standalone articles, though at least Trebor has verifiable information in it... Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not against a merge, but you popular culture types need to understand that notability is not affected by whether there is information online or not. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't cast aspersions - no one has asserted sourcing needs to be online thus far in the discussion. That's not the reason you're getting pushback. You're getting pushback because you aren't actually citing or invoking anything. You just keep making WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSNOTABLE WP:ATAs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is the entry in the references section; there are books mentioned in Further Reading. Google Scholar has a considerable number of books with significant coverage on him; they include https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-music-history/article/abs/an-episode-in-the-south-ars-subtilior-and-the-patronage-of-french-princes/4F5EA81CC0345A850C971836859832A6 ; https://search.proquest.com/openview/d9810dfdb21e258c9b6bc2f87da5f874/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y The polyphonic virelai "He tres doulz rossignol" attributed to him is one of the most notable pieces of the genre. Plenty of other sources exist; https://www.persee.fr/doc/caief_0571-5865_1979_num_31_1_1185 and so on. e.ux 20:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV necessitates that the sources in question address the subject 'directly and in detail.'
    The first source is about how these Medieval French sources have been preserved, and the latter literally says its aim is only to transcribe the unpublished chansons of the Chantilly manuscript.
    To my eyes, the only relevance of these sources to Borlet/Trebor are that he is passingly mentioned within them as composer of some of these pieces, which is pretty plainly trivial coverage. The third source you've linked is a French-language source which I'm not equipped to assess.
    Could you be more specific about how you feel these sources demonstrate in-depth, specific coverage of the subject? Athanelar (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They analyse his work -stylistically-; some dwell on his possible identification with other musicians -various authors support more or less assertively and with different arguments the Trebor hypothesis. These are no passing mentions, nor trivial coverage, and plenty of other sources exist. But as creator of one of the most notable virelai of the time, he could, one could argue, meet the specific notability guidelines anyway -like Wikipedia:CREATIVE; it may remain a short article -but it is not that short-;- if everyone agrees a redirect and merge to Trebor is better, it might be an acceptable solution too, but things are clearer this way -and fairer- imv; outright deletion would be absolutely inappropriate, I think; coverage on him in various other languages abounds, fwiw- and please also check the information in https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM065.HTM e.ux 20:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also meets WP:COMPOSER..."Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music." e.ux 20:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Trebor (composer). I came to this discussion via Trebor, who I strongly believe is notable: see my comments at that AfD. I think Eva's point on WP:NCOMPOSER carries some merit given the inclusion in Grove, so I'm somewhat opposed to outright deletion. However, from my literature review, Borlet clearly receives much less coverage than his doppelganger. There is also a lot of overlap – they may be the same person after all, and as such the vast majority of potential sources with more substantial coverage speak about Borlet in relation to Trebor. I do note the fairly imposing further reading section but, of the Chantilly scholars that speak of Borlet, Plumley, Brown, Goméz, and Reaney all treat him this way, while Earp and Apel (1 and 2) only give scarce passing mentions. So I end up here offering a middle ground with a merge: not on notability grounds or as an ATD, but per WP:OVERLAP. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a quote from A Ballade for Mathieu de Foix: Style and Structure in a Composition by Trebor
    "On Trebor/Robert/Trebol/Borlet, see especially Maria del Carmen Gomez Muntané, La Música en la casa real catalano-aragonesa durante los años 1336-1432, vol. 1 : "Historia y Documentos" (Barcelona, 1977), pp. 99-101.[15] The Chantilly manuscript attributes only a single realistic virelai to Borlet ("He tres doulz roussignol"), whereas Trebor is assigned six ballades and no virelais.
    Since stylistic differences between genres are at least as great as stylistic differences between individual composers, it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that the composer of "He tres doulx roussignol" was or was not the same as the composer of the six ballades on stylistic grounds alone. No music is known to be attributed either to Robert or to Trebol."
    So two scholars say Borlet and Trebor are different persons. A merge wouldn't be appropiate. 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)~ — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. As noted above, I took both the Brown and Goméz sources into consideration when drafting my !vote. The justification for my arguement is not identity, as you infer. Most scholarship on Borlet is related to the possibility they were the same person: this shows they are "related subjects that have a large overlap" (WP:OVERLAP), which is enough reason for a merge on its own. Also, you are misreading the sources. Brown claims it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that [Borlet] was or was not the same as [Trebor] (emphasis added). His phrasing leaves open both the possibility that they are connected or are not, which your conclusion incorrectly parses. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We don't need hard confirmation on this to warrant a merge or mention there, just that reliable sources cover them together, which they clearly do. The complexity of the situation can be covered in the prose. It'd be pretty easy to cover at the forefront of the article too, considering the lack of content. Even the sloppiest of merges wouldn't escalate the resulting article out of stub status... Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is just clearly a case of consulting Google over subject-matter expertise. Any merging that might arise can and should be handled separately from this discussion on the talk page, based on scholarly consensus. Chubbles (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Trebor (composer) - basically I agree with UpTheOctave!'s analysis of the sources, and think that readers will be best served by a single article that covers the composer(s) and the scholarship surrounding whether they are the same person or not. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waël Mechri Yver

[edit]
Waël Mechri Yver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined at AfC multiple times, before being moved to mainspace, first by a paid editor and now again by a new user. I'm unable to find any evidence of WP:NMUSIC. Yuvaank (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and France. Yuvaank (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pretty much all the sources seem to be promotional fluff pieces, and the article is written in a similar tone.
    gompk
    10:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 13:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total puff piece without reliable sourcing. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Leroux

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen (cybersecurity)

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for corporations and fails WP:BEFORE. Any sources I can find (including the ones already included) are all routine coverage, press releases (not independent), or very brief mentions of the company (not significant coverage). Perryprog (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Cryptofiler

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

Page has multiple issues that have not been resolved, starting 8 years ago; the article content is not well-cited and the topic does not appear to be notable. Twillfactor (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 21:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

François Duhamel

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

Can find no evidence of signifcant coverage of reliable sources so fails WP:SPORTCRIT. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable unreferenced BLP. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Source 1 is a routine match preview with a few sentences on Duhamel. Source 2 is a routine contract signing story and source 3 contains more info on him but nowhere near a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agnieszka653 can you explain your reasoning here? SIGCOV, as Robby.is.on said, does not care about the language. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has some reporting in the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chesterfield/5144452.stm I found an ESPN stub page, but I found more coverage of him in French sources: https://www.leballonrond.fr/joueur/francois-duhamel/54788 https://www.foot-national.com/data/1137-2172-328-saison-football-Duhamel-Francois.html https://saint-malo.maville.com/sport/detail_-saint-malo.-francois-duhamel-un-nouvel-attaquant-pour-les-diables-noirs_52701-2351317_actu.Htm Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article is a transfer report, i.e. routine coverage; Foot National is a database profile; LeBallonRond, another database, is unreliable per WP:WPFLINKSNO. So these three don't contribute to WP:SIGCOV. The Maville article, another transfer report, has a short paragraph about Duhamel, but it's not enough for me. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like more input on whether the French-language sources are deemed sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Newton

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

This doesn't meet notability standards. This article was suspected to be a hoax a few weeks ago, and was PROD'ed as such. As discussed in Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#Operation Newton, that was premature, and I removed the PROD. The subject is real, but as I noted in that talk page discussion, that doesn't mean that it's notable. I am now nominating it so that it can go through the regular deletion process. Renerpho (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Only other mention is on https://codenames.info/operation/newton/ Sushidude21! (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator @Sushidude21!: I'd like to note that that's not quite true. As mentioned in the discussion linked above, there are a few sources that call it "Mission Newton". Michael R. King's Jedburgh Operations, p.110 from 1991 is one of the rare English sources I could find. All of them, like this one, mention it in passing. Renerpho (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically no sources on the topic microTato(🗯️) (✍🏻) 12:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines in Oceania

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of largest airlines in Oceania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a straight-forward failure of WP:V, WP:LISTN, WP:NCORP, and WP:NOR.

Particular, no source is cited for this ranking. Instead editors have created their own ranking by comparing the publicly-announced passengers-carried of a selection of airlines. This is an unverified, original-research WP:SYNTH of non-independent sources. The original-research nature of this article is emphasised by the way it stopped being updated in 2018 when the editors who created it lost interest. Quantas stopped publishing their data in 2019 according to their website so this may also be a reason.

In order for this to pass the relevant guidelines (WP:LISTN and WP:NCORP) we would need multiple independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to this ranking. I wasn't even able to find one independent, reliable source that actually discusses the ranking for Oceania. At most it is possible to source a listing for specific routes (e.g., Australia-America). It is entirely possible, given how aviation in Oceania is dominated by flights into/out of the continent, that the "largest airline in Oceania" is not even based there or on this list.

Reviewing the 2007 AFD, the arguments used there (mostly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:USEFUL) simply don't apply now

Nothing here is reliably and independently sourced so there is no scope for merging. As for redirects, there isn't a single clear one so I favour deletion, but I could see Largest airlines in the world, Aviation in Australia, and List of the busiest airports in Australia as at least reasonable ones. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, France, Oceania, Australia, Fiji, and New Zealand. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of a larger collections Category:Lists of largest airlines which all are defined from Lists of largest airlines, it may be Oceania is as the smallest segment looks less stable to get a precedent to delete all. This should be an all or none you cant a set of set articles that are not complete. Gnangarra 14:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFF. We don't have to keep articles just because they're part of a set. Nor do we have to delete other articles just because one of a set fails our policies and guidelines. FOARP (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    its more than otherstuff, the logical is to merge into List of largest airlines there are then all the other daughter articles on the same subject do they get mreged as well. Its obvious that this is a test case as its the only one in the set being proposed at the moment( experience tells me only someone with another agenda fights as hard responding to every keep response). This succeeds, next up all the other continents are list based on this, they too get merged as the information is important in showing the diversity of regions and the impact their airlines, Oceania just happens to be smaller than other regions. We follow that next step the same happens, then main article is too big its gets divided again maybe in this format maybe in another way. Nothing is achieved expect that people are spend time rinsing and repeating. This not comparing apples with cakes its recognising that some subject carry complexity that when comprehensively cover cant be contained with one. Critically more people access via mobile we are going to have a greater demand for succinct daughter articles and short over view articles. Gnangarra 06:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    " the logical is to merge into List of largest airlines" - In which case you'd support merging?
    "Its obvious that this is a test case" - It's not obvious. I haven't even looked at the other articles and have no opinions on them. I suspect there is sourcing for at least North America, Europe, South America, and Africa since they have trans-national bodies that could produce such stats (USMCA, MERCOSUR, EU, AU), but that doesn't apply to Oceania. Also, this is ultimately just a WP:WAX argument: we're talking about this article, not others. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    its doesnt require a merge when keeping is the more logical outcome for a notable topic Gnangarra 08:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the evidence that this is notable? There is no evidence that this is an WP:NLIST/WP:NCORP pass. Stand-alone articles (which this is) are required to be notable independent from any article they've been split from per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Smaller articles do not inherit the notability of larger ones.
    The article Largest airlines in the world might be split any number of ways (e.g., by country) so why (other than pure inertia/residency) does splitting it with an article specifically about Oceania - a continent that no organisation publishes a ranking for (other than Wikipedia editors doing original research) make sense? FOARP (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being out of date does not mean there is original research, that's a complete non-sequitur. Putting things in order on one statistic is just a basic WP:CALC used in all sorts of articles, not original research. This is a valid subarticle of Largest airlines in the world that is parallel to the other continent-based lists. This is a perfectly appropriate list for navigation of airlines based in the region, and there do not have to be additional sources that are Oceania-specific in order to organize the set of articles this way. Reywas92Talk 15:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about it being out of date is that no-one outside WP is producing this data, so when editors stopped doing OR we stopped being able to update it. Sub-articles must also be notable per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Selecting the list-items and producing your own ranking is WP:SYNTH and hence OR. FOARP (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's not. It may be outdated, incomplete, or poorly done, but it's not synthesis or original research. No one is making any subjective decision to select any airlines or not. It's not synthesis to say Qantas carried more passengers than Air New Zealand. Or sure, remove the ranking column if you think there's another airline that should be included in between these, but I see no basis for any improper synthesis or deletion. The beauty of Wikipedia lists like this is that we're able to compile statistics from multiple sources, we aren't limited to precise lists that merely duplicate what a single entity makes in a specific way already. — Reywas92Talk 03:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's not synthesis" - if it's not synthesis, then how else were the airlines ranked in the table selected? The only answer is "editors decided for themselves what they should be", which is WP:SYNTH. In reality other airlines operate in Oceania and carry passengers there - particularly airlines not based there - that aren't ranked. Sure, you could remove the ranking, but then this becomes just a list of airlines based in Oceania, which already exists. FOARP (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, it's a list of largest airlines, so Air Marshall Islands may have been left out because it's pretty small, but it's actually perfectly fine and typical to have a threshold to only include the ones with the most passengers! That's not synthesis, that's not making things up, that's not drawing unsupported conclusions! Whatever the cutoff is could be listed, but just being a mediocre, incomplete list does not mean it's original research. It's certainly not synthesis or original research to only include those based in Oceania. It's a small enough list though that merging it there would be fine too though. — Reywas92Talk 14:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree to merging this to List of airlines of Oceania. FOARP (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs work but a useful list. Agree with Reywas92 and Gnangarra's points above. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL. FOARP (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, "Agree with Reywas92 and Gnangarra's points above.". I did this to avoid repetition. They've made good points. If you need me to, I could repeat them but it seems like a waste of my time to type and others to read. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a complete garbage failure of NLIST: there is no independent sourcing demonstrating this is a notable topic; inclusion appears entirely arbitrary and opaque; the "ranking" doesn't even correspond to any of the columns in the table: it's not ranked by 2025 numbers or most recent reported year's numbers, and instead seems to be based on the entirely unstated and OR "total number of passengers since 2008"; and the data are such an unverifiable mess that even if the other points were untrue the page should still be TNTed.
    No it is not a "simple calculation" to add up individual airlines' reported yearly figures—which apparently are not even sourceable for all years, and sometimes only cover a few months—starting with some random date, using inconsistent and sometimes totally unknown sources. Where does the Qantas number of "49.7 million passengers" for 2017 come from? Not the linked sources: the company's "results centre" financial report for June 2016 to June 2017 states 53.659 million passengers were carried by Qantas Group Operations, which comprises Qantas Domestic, Jetstar Domestic, Qantas International, Jetstar International, and Jetstar Asia (a different list from the "QantasLink, Jetstar, Jetconnect, and Network Aviation" listed in the table).
    A sortable list of largest airlines might be acceptable at the list of airlines in Oceania if the inclusion criterion was explicit, straightforward, and not OR. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had just added some figures for 2019–25, but since the page was forgotten about for so long I understand the frustration. It does appear that past updates failed to correct the ranking as additional years but not complete data were added, but this is clearly just neglected and incomplete, not original research. The different list of what airlines are in Qantas group is also just outdated since Jetconnect stopped operating in 2018. Pehaps it could be limited to airlines with at least 1 million passengers. — Reywas92Talk 18:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      So:
      1. We don't have any independent basis for the stats we're actually offering here. All we have is the statistics offered by individual airlines about how many passengers they carried, not validated by anyone outside them. We have no idea if airlines are using the same measure.
      2. We do know, or should anyway know, that actually the fiscal year varies from country to country across the Oceania region and does not end on 30 June in every country. For example, in Fiji it ends 31st July, in New Zealand it ends 31st March, in Papua New Guinea it ends 31st December, ditto Tahiti and the other French territories. This table is garbage because it is not comparing like-with-like, even the time-periods are not the same (though it states that they are, because the article is OR and bad OR at that).
      3. The reason why it is "neglected and incomplete" is because no-one - other than Wikipedia editors doing OR - is publishing such a ranking, meaning that to update it we have to do more OR, which editors now know (or should know), not to do. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, WP:LISTN alone is clear enough.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FERN

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

It appears that all sources cited in the article about this organization originate from its official website. Moreover, from Google search yielded no third-party profiles or independent coverage about this organization , with minimal news visibility regarding the organization itself. 日期20220626 (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability. I pruned all the primary sources, irrelevant sources, and passing mentions. Of the 8 sources left, half aren't even about Fern and 1 is a dead link that looks like it was a primary source Schnookums123 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Others

[edit]
[edit]
[edit]
[edit]
[edit]
[edit]
[edit]

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/France&oldid=1318928306"