Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

16 March 2026

More information Purge ...

Purge
Shortcuts WP:AFD/TWP:AFD/T WP:AFDTODAYWP:AFDTODAY

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday March 14 (Sat) March 13 (Fri) March 12 (Thu) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

More information < March 15, March 17 > ...

< March 15	March 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kim Vo

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

Fails in WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. In my BEFORE - All the articles about him date back to January 2026, when he died. Suddenly, there's a swarm of "tribute articles" articles and barely any before his death. It's not that someone becomes notable overnight, post their death. Pretty susceptible signs for lack of standalone notability. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Fashion, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Sifundzani School

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield anything useful. Won't mind withdrawing if sources are found. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Africa. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Robert Piché

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

WP:BIO1E. Does not appear to be notable outside of the Air Transat Flight 236 context; relevant content can be merged there. 162 etc. (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Simon Ssenkaayi

AfDs for this article:

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO. Sourced to PR/puff pieces. KH-1 (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Gimme What I Don't Know (I Want)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing coverage of this outside of the album. Laun chba ller 23:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Red Shell Momentum 23:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom; please ping me if sources to the contrary appear. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep, no major changes since last deletion discussion. However if a consensus against keeping the page emerges this time, it should be redirected to The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 as an ATD. मल्ल (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

List of Vocaloid songs

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

This list is fundamentally unmaintainable. My separate arguments are as follows:

"Vocaloid songs" is not a simple category, but rather an impossibly broad one. Vocaloid is a software, closer to an instrument. Quite a popular one at that, with over 100 different characters/voicebanks. It is not a genre, nor is it a specific artist. In theory, a "List of songs using Vocaloid" can be argued as of broad as a category as "List of songs that use guitars" or "List of films edited using Adobe Premiere Pro". And even more broad than categories we've ruled out as too broad like "List of rock songs".
1. And while I'm sure that, somehow, an WP:NLIST argument could be made, the broadness of this article is so large that I'd argue the page fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and there are better alternatives that I will outline below.
The article, as is, has no clear inclusion criteria. It appears to be based on songs that we have individual articles for, judging by the terminology of "Notable songs". However, using Wikipedia slang in a mainspace article is asking for trouble. Whatever a "notable song" is jargon to a leeway reader. No attempt at what a "notable song" is is clarified to the reader. Furthermore, even if that were clarified, it likely would not have foundation in Wikipedia policy as any experienced editor should know that the threshold of receiving inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia is much lower than what is typically required for a standalone article. Unless we invoke WP:CSC, although I think that's something that'd have to come out of consensus, as opposed to this page's apparent mashing together of marginally related songs.
There are better options to covering Vocaloid songs as a group, or particularly noteworthy ones. My initial thoughts point towards something like a list of songs using specific Vocaloids (e.g. "List of songs with Hatsune Miku"), which while still very broad would be much more maintainable (one voicebank versus over a hundred). Or, an article centered around the Niconico Vocaloid Songs Top 20 chart and then another article for songs that reached number-one on it, a format with far more precedent on Wikipedia (e.g. Mainstream Rock (chart) and List of Billboard Mainstream Rock number-one songs of the 2020s). A third option, though likely the least ideal, is a list of songs in a rhythm game focused around Vocaloid like Hatsune Miku: Project Diva, if we truly wanted to cover these songs somewhere.
While I know that quality issues are not a reason for deletion in most cases, I would still like to point out that this article is relatively uninformative to the point where, even if ruled out as a notable concept, wouldn't have anything worth preserving. There are two sentences of original writing here; everything else is a copy paste of a song article's lead sentence. A category is more informative. λ NegativeMP1 01:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. λ NegativeMP1 01:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Category:Vocaloid songs already exists, that should be good enough. 162 etc. (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Lítačka

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

The page seems referenced but the content can easily fit into PID page - Prague Integrated Transport. I propose for it to be carried over to the page under the Ticketing section, together with references Soybean46 (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Walk the Blue Fields

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

Upcoming film project lacking significant non-routine coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 08:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Draftify Principal photography began only a few weeks ago and hasn't yet acquired non-trivial significant coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Draftify per above. If we had a page for the book I'd suggest redirecting there. If I get time today I may create one and include info about the film as an ATD, so it could redirect there. There's just not enough coverage of the production to show where it's notable in and of itself. If a worst case scenario happened and the production got abandoned completely today (rare but does happen) then it's not enough to pass NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I've compiled a few sources at the author's article, if anyone wants to do it before I get around to it. The book certainly looks like it's overdue for an article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep It meets notability for inclusion in the main space. It is in production - it exists - and is well sourced, well written and features notable cast, crew and production company. That is more than enough justification for most any film article to exist. There is no clear, definitive reason why it shouldn't be in the main space. TheMovieGuy

The coverage here is extremely light and a lot of it is fairly routine and based on the same press release. What makes these fairly routine is that although the coverage may look in-depth, the bulk of it is routine cast/crew announcements paired with a couple of canned quotes. The bulk of it is often about other things the cast/crew have or are doing. This is kind of a big sign that the article is heavily based on a press release, as this is kind of par for the course with these and the goal is to promote the film by saying a bunch of "oh the people involved as so awesome, so the film will be awesome". However not in a way that's actual criticism/commentary, but instead is PR type prose.

Here's a rundown:

Deadline, dated 9/4/25: This announces that the film will get made. It announces that Blunt will star and produce. It's exactly the type of thing I mentioned above as far as content goes. Filming is not mentioned.
Independent, dated 3/2/26: This mentions that filming will take place, but it has not occurred yet. It's a bit better than some of the other typical announcements, which is typically another cast/crew PR article with a single sentence.
Deadline, dated 2/24/26: This is another cast/crew type announcement. Like the first one, it's just a cast/crew announcement. It doesn't include the quotes or go into quite as much flowery "this is what else they're doing" language, but it's essentially the same information. The big difference is that you have a couple of new names added. It doesn't really go into a huge amount of depth.
IFTN, dated 2/25/26: This is effectively the same as the Deadline sources, just slightly reworded. This uses the same quotes as the first article and the same cast/crew info. In other words, they either received the same press release or they combined the highlights of both Deadline sources to say the same thing in fewer words. There's nothing new here. It mentions production, however I've seen outlets use it to mean active filming as well as to reference pre-production.

What makes all of this routine is that it's super, super common for film companies to send out press releases to media outlets in order to hype the film. It's also common for them to trickle out cast/crew names, as the goal is to keep the film in the public eye. I've seen outlets publish "new" cast announcements stating that a person was joining a film, only for it to be the same info that was announced a few months prior. The only new info may be that there's a single change in cast/crew or an offhand mention (like 2-5 word mention) that principal photography has begun. With some of these, they may be using the same content as the earlier press release but change a couple of sentences here and there.

The issue here is that if something were to happen and production were to stop entirely right here and now, the coverage wouldn't be enough to establish that the production is notable. All we have are routine announcements of cast/crew, that are heavily based on a press release. A good example of what would be needed to establish notability per NFF would be Batgirl (film). that received a ton of coverage and while it may initially seem like they're heavily cast/crew announcements (and those are absolutely in the article), the coverage also contains journalist commentary on things like casting, location, costumes, and so on. Even then, the film is probably more notable for its cancellation.

Will this film release? Probably, but they also said that about Batgirl and it was shelved. There's a whole list of films that were cancelled during or after filming. Some do have articles, but there are also those that don't and likely don't merit their own article. Many of the ones that appear to have articles are actually covered in others, because the coverage just isn't enough to justify their own article. Many of those films were also considered to be sure things as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of server-side web frameworks

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
~~Tentative keep~~ There is quite a lot of bad content here to remove but the actual comparison stuff is probably OK. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Switch to Speedy keep without prejudice to a better reasoned renomination later. This is not intrinsically OR and no other convincing rationale has been offered. Several articles have all been individually nominated with the same insufficient rationale and it is a big waste of time. Best to scrap all these hasty AfDs. (Note. I've removed all entries without articles from the comparison so that should address any complaints of non-notable content.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Claiming that this nomination is a "big waste of time" is your opinion, not a valid AfD rationale. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Sourcing needs improving, but versions, release dates, licences, etc. are certainly not OR. Greenman (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
The choices of what to compare these libraries on is original research. For example, I am not aware of any source that compares JavaServer Faces and Google Web Toolkit based on what testing, security, caching, or form validation frameworks they use. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Note that the OP, an editor with just over 100 edits, has nominated numerous comparison articles for deletion, and been accused of doing so because they disagree with another nomination. See discussion. User justifies their action with the false claim that 'Wikipedia policy on Comparison articles is that they are not allowed'. Greenman (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please read the link you posted. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

'Keep, for IT, it's important source wit hplenty of sources provided.

Platipusica2 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Almost all of the sources in the article are primary; none of them jump out to me as a secondary source that compares these frameworks, which is what we actually need in order to meet WP: NLIST. So the "plenty of sources" comment above doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. We are not a repository for keeping track of version numbers, release dates, and licenses, per WP: LINKFARM. WP: DEL-REASON says that we should delete any content which is unsuitable for an encyclopedia -- this content is unsuitable, so it should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of FTP client software

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

~~Tentative keep~~. These sorts of table based comparisons are fairly common on Wikipedia and this one is not egregious. I think all entries without an article should be removed but I don't see any big problem with it existing. It only summarises what is (or should be) in the articles so I don't see it as OR. Sure, people try to sneak their non-notable software in from time to time but that can be dealt with by removing all entries without their own articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of FTP server software packages and the other identical "Comparison of" AfDs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software by the same nominator. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Switch to Speedy keep without prejudice to a better reasoned renomination later. This is not intrinsically OR and no other convincing rationale has been offered. Several articles have all been individually nominated with the same insufficient rationale and it is a big waste of time. Best to scrap all these hasty AfDs. (Note. I've removed all entries without articles from the comparison so that should address any complaints of non-notable content.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close this nomination. OP, with ~100 edits, appears to be mass nominating articles for closure as they disagree with another decision. See discussion Greenman (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please read the link you posted. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. ftp was one of the most used technology on the start of Internet. And this encyclopedic list of ftp clients has great historical value. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: These Keep votes are all total nonsense. Two of them are really just about behavior outside of this AfD and the third is basically just saying that FTP is WP: IMPORTANT, which has no grounding in Wikipedia policy. The choice of how to compare these clients is WP: OR; for example, we compare the clients across their support for about a dozen different protocols. Why compare based on protocol support, and why are we choosing to compare on these specific protocols? This is a choice that an individual editor made, which violates WP: OR. Most if not all of the tables have this problem. Cleaning this article up would amount to a complete rewrite, so WP:DEL-REASON#14 applies, which says that we should delete any content unsuitable for an encyclopedia. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of FTP server software packages

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~. These sorts of table based comparisons are fairly common on Wikipedia and this one is... OK, it's not a great example. It's confusing as hell. I think it needs rationalising. It only should only summarise what is in the articles so that there is no risk of OR. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Speedy keep without prejudice to a better reasoned renomination later. This is not intrinsically OR and no other convincing rationale has been offered. Several articles have all been individually nominated with the same insufficient rationale and it is a big waste of time. Best to scrap all these hasty AfDs. It still needs extensive cleanup though. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close this nomination. OP, with ~100 edits, appears to be mass nominating articles for closure as they disagree with another decision. See discussion Greenman (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please read the link you posted. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. ftp was one of the most used technology on the start of Internet. And this encyclopedic list of ftp servers has great historical value. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete this is complete WP:OR, editors have chosen which characteristics to compare. Sources are meagre and incomplete. Tables contain external links to Github as some of the packages do not have their own articles, so it seems editors have arbitrarily picked which packages are included in the tables, as the they are not exhaustive. Possible alternative to deletion is to covert to a list, removing all unsourced information. Orange sticker (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Per above. This is completely unsourced, and we would basically need to start over to make this content suitable for the encyclopedia; WP: TNT and WP: DEL-REASON#14 apply here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Very poorly sourced original research, unencyclopedic. Concerns regarding nom's behaviour have been discussed at ANI with no consensus that they were being disruptive so those concerns should not impact this AfD. Keep arguments above have failed to engage with the very real issues raised about this article. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of Usenet newsreaders

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Mostly unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

~~Tentative keep~~. These sorts of table based comparisons are fairly common on Wikipedia and this one is not egregious. I think all entries without an article should be removed but I don't see any big problem with it existing. It only summarises what is (or should be) in the articles so I don't see it as OR. Sure, people try to sneak their non-notable software in from time to time but that can be dealt with by removing all entries without their own articles. That said, how on earth is rn (newsreader) not included? Have we no sense of history? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Switching to Speedy keep without prejudice to a better reasoned renomination later. This is not intrinsically OR and no other convincing rationale has been offered. Several articles have all been individually nominated with the same insufficient rationale and it is a big waste of time. Best to scrap all these hasty AfDs. (Note. I've removed all entries without articles from the comparison so that should address any complaints of non-notable content.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a well-reasoned nomination, and you are free to not participate in this AfD if you think that it is a "big waste of time". Do you have a source that says slrn is "highly extensible using S-Lang scripts (macros)"? Then don't make the claim that this is "not intrinsically OR". HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close this nomination. OP, with ~100 edits, appears to be mass nominating articles for closure as they disagree with another decision. See discussion Greenman (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please read the link you posted. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

WP: OR is policy, which is what that essay and the original rationale cite. It is exceptionally poor form to suggest that the nominator has not read what they've cited. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: The WP: POINT stuff is being discussed at ANI -- that discussion can run its course, but for the purposes of determining whether an article should be kept or deleted, behavior on other AfDs is not relevant. WP: DEL-REASON says that we have latitude to delete "any ... content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This article does not have a single source and would need dozens if not hundreds of sources to meet normal sourcing standards. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Not opposed to a merge given the discussion below. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge with List of Usenet newsreaders. Both have sourcing problems, and don't serve sufficiently different purposes. We can include a table of technical specs in a list, after all, and that's really all this is. It's nominated for OR, but I see no good argument as to why it's OR. Unsourced != OR, after all. If I had to guess, I'd bet the creator just used various newsreaders' official sites and threw it all in a table. That's not great sourcing, but it's not OR. The question, as ever, is whether there are sufficient sources to justify treating this as a group (WP:NLIST). Comparisons and lists are easy to find on tech websites even now, in 2026, and usenet newsreaders have been written about for quite some time. But I think we'd be working with largely the same set of sources to justify NLIST for both the list and comparison, and, again, I don't see that we need both. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
One simple argument for why this article is OR is that the choice of features to compare newsreaders against is not driven by sourcing. I think you would be hard pressed to find a source that compares these specific types of news readers down to whether they support integrated search service retention or the specific license these pieces of software are distributed under. If no source makes a comparison for a specific feature, choosing to do so in an article is usually a violation of WP: OR. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Agree with this, and agree that Merge is probably the best option. The fact someone chose to include a column for "Price" seems very unencyclopedic and "Integrated search service (retention / $$$/yr)" seems complete WP:OR and possibly promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

But that's a neutrality argument, not an original research argument. When we have a table based entirely on official websites/official stats, it's all verifiable. When one of a set is lifted up above the rest and someone argues that it shouldn't be (such as a feature of software), that's a WP:WEIGHT claim. We make decisions about what bits of data to include all the time. There are all sorts of details about all sorts of subjects that we are ok relying on official and/or primary sources for because of a judgment that those data points are important, even if they're not the most common data points in secondary sources. Book plots, dates, and so on. Whether to include or omit a particular data point seems more sensible to sort out on a case-by-case basis, informed by the literature. But even within secondary sources, to use this page as an example, if every source about Usenet readers mentions its license, but no comparison compares licenses, there's still a good case that it's due weight to include in a comparison given the body of sourcing on the subject of usenet readers, and it doesn't rely on OR at all. I'm not arguing that any particular data point, especially price (which is usually a bad idea, regardless of the subject), should be included -- I just reject the idea that OR is relevant here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree -- I think that if a user forwards a viewpoint not reflected by any known source, it is WP: OR by definition. I won't litigate this though, since I agree that a merge is probably the right thing to do here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unlike the others, there isn't yet a consensus here even disgarding the procedural argument
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Selective merge into List of Usenet newsreaders per HyperAccelerated and Rhododendrites. मल्ल (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Rupali Chakankar

AfDs for this article:

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

Failing WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. Sources are mostly unreliable, announcements, Wp:PRIMARY, and WP:ROUTINE. The promotional wording and editing pattern of the article creator also indicate a possible WP:COI. Zuck28 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Soft Delete: this seems like a case of failed WP:NPOL. There are a lot of appointed commissions and we don't typically extend notability to members. Could be convinced to change my vote if they are shown to clearly meet WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

*Keep per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Sufficient sources are there to prove WP:GNG. --SatnaamIN (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

- 1: Trivial mention
- 2: Routine announcement of her appointment
- 3: controversy regarding her appointment
- 4 and 5: Trivial mentions/ controversy about "objectionable comments" on her.
- 6: Routine coverage/announcement
Zuck28 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Hoax assessment. She was covered by the BBC thrice, and by multiply covered by The Hindu & The Indian Express. That proves her notability. SatnaamIN (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Lol. Zuck28 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Nettur Technical Training Foundation

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete they may be "Securing your Future with your own hands", but not in a notable way. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thavory Meas Bong

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that they exist, and have to show passage of certain specific notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing -- but existence is the only notability claim stated here, the article is so poorly written that it still to this day just says what decade the film was released in rather than what year, and is "referenced" entirely to a directory entry on an unreliable site and a Geocities (remember that?!?) fan page, with not a single GNG-worthy footnote ever having been added to the article at all.
Obviously I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with proper access to Khmer-language sources can find the quality of coverage needed to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to cite any GNG-calibre sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Cambodia. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

*Redirect to List of Cambodian films of 1969, per WP:ATD-R.--~2026-14372-47 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

But the film was apparently successfully distributed in a country that is evidently not a major film-producing country, was "preserved by the Bophana Audiovisual Research Center based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia" and screened in 2022 at the ACMI so Keep is possible per two/three criteria of NFILM (https://www.acmi.net.au/whats-on/thavary-meas-bong-bophana-center/). ~2026-14372-47 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That isn't an inclusion-clinching claim without reliable sources. It's the sourcing that determines whether a film gets an article on those grounds, not the statement. And no, it is not standard practice to redirect film titles to lists of films. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes. It. is. ~2026-14372-47 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Precisely which of my correct statements are you, anonymous IP with five days of edit history, presuming to contradict me, longtime editor who's been around here for almost two decades and contributed significantly to the writing of our inclusion criteria for films in the first place (meaning I know exactly what they are and how they work, and can never be wrong in what I say about those things)? Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I had missed that impressively humble statement. I'll reply to your question, apologies for the delay. You informed me that you can never be wrong in what [you] say about those things (!) but -again I'm so sorry- I'm very much afraid that you are indeed wrong when you say that it is not standard practice to redirect film titles to lists of films; that is indeed an inaccurate statement, because redirecting film titles to lists of films (by country + by year/decade, for example) is completely standard practice on this Wikipedia, in particular for old non-English-language films, as is the case here. Ask around if you were not aware of that (a quick look at recently closed AfDs might suffice).(You also might want to read the essay WP:IGNORINGATD, but if you wrote that too, pardon me!) ~2026-14372-47 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

And the fact that it was preserved and screened more than 5 years after release, is not a statement but a fact, that is sourced. ~2026-14372-47 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing, for the purposes of whether a film gets a Wikipedia article or not, means WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film in media, not directory entries on the self-published websites of organizations that are not media outlets self-promoting their own organizational programming. (Even current films don't get articles on the basis of the self-published program catalogues of film festivals that screen them — they do or don't get articles on the basis of film critics publishing reviews of the films in the media.) Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Was it or was it not screened at the ACMI in 2022? Is 2022 not 5 years after its release? This can be considered enough for a Keep per Wikipedia:NFO. If not, it is clearly enough for a redirect per Wikipedia:ATD-R, to a list of films, a totally standard practice on this Wikipedia. Side note: The official website of the ACMI is absolutely not what one calls "self-published" in English. ~2026-14372-47 (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. ~2026-14372-47 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

•Changing to plain Keep in view of recent findings that indicate clearly significant critical attention and cultural importance in the context of the history of Cambodian cinema.--~2026-14372-47 (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep The article has been expanded and the film clearly passes WP:NFO because The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Internet and Mobile Association of India

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

Non notable organisation. No secondary sources, just press releases and announcement. I performed a WP:BEFORE, but only announcements nothing meets WP:SIGCOV]. Zuck28 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Internet, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment:I guess this by BBC, this by The Hindu, this by The Hindu, this by The Indian Express, and this by The Caravan can improve the article to meet the notability. --SatnaamIN (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per User:SaTnamZIN and what can be added to article if not already. WP:GNG at least is met. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Additionally this paper reads "According to IAMAI(Internet And Mobile Association of India), it has reported that India’s online advertising market is set to touch Rs. 2938 crore in 2013–2014 such as search, display, mobile, e-mail and video advertising as well as social media advertising. The mobile live stream launches like NexG TV, Ditto TV (launched by Zee), and Zenga TV is another player that has been seeing ad revenues. The mobile wallet companies like Airtel money, ITZ cash, Oxicash and GI Tech have built a base of more than 3.5 million customers.". And several references in JSTOR as this, this and this. I think sources found at this AfD are enough to Keep the article. The orgnization's reports have been used by several journals, media and books. --SatnaamIN (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Anoyd

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Do what you will with it lol but he definitely meets multiple of the guidelines you linked including 1. He has a been recognized or mentioned in a number of reliable, non-trivial articles from Billboard, XXL, etc. 5. He has released music on same label as Chris Webby 7. One of most prominent representatives of Connecticut rappers. 12. Performed on Sway in the Morning. Splashmoney15 (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I added some more citations that should further prove notability Splashmoney15 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Per WP:HEY and enough independent coverage (CT Mirror, XXL, Complex, HotNewHipHop, Billboard, Sway). WidgetKid ^Converse 04:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Taman Universiti National Secondary School

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

Cannot find reliable secondary sources significantly covering this school, outside of the 1 source added to the article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. PROD was contested ApexParagon (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbor Memorial

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

Article does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, furthermore, search of the company does not produce coverage that satisfies WP:GNG - most news coverage is either primary or sponsored newswire. The company was involved in a pricing controversy that received independent local coverage around 2017, but that information is not present in the article and was not significant enough to warrant inclusion on its own. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep It's notable as the largest funeral industry corporation in Canada. Passed Orgcrit and GNG with significant coverage in Candian media such as CBC News, the Toronto Star, Global News and Canadian Press and there are numerous additional mainstream news articles on the company that can be added as sources. CBC News is not "local coverage" it's a national television network, as is Global Television, the Canadian Press is Canada's national news agency and the Toronto Star is the largest mass circulation newspaper in Canada and is also available nationally. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Oleh Strutsinskyi

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

No specific notability claims in article that meet WP:BASIC, article as is reads like a career history only. Plurality of sources seem to be primary related to Ukrainian Military. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep: The sources in this article have as many secondary sources as he said it seems to have primary sources. That's number one. Number two, many of the sources will be found in either Russian or Ukrainian as the majority of those sources. Even so, there is another source that is deemed reliable. For example: 1. That being said, it has been added to the article, and they'll be plenty more to come. Ivan Milenin (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Not seeing any evidence that this person passes the WP:GNG. Merely being a member of an American soccer league team is no longer enough for notability per updated WP:NSPORT guidelines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

While the guidelines may suggest otherwise, some people enjoy referencing more obscure and random sports figures that they have come across in the past. Kingslay725 (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC) — Kingslay725 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Jimmy Slayton

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

Related Articles