Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 20

Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)

Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) (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)

Only three reliable sources after the majority was deleted; cursory search of the party doesn't seem to reveal more RS that can be used. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep, I've added some more material drawing on reliable sources, there is more out there. Warofdreams talk 00:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Weak Keep per Warofdreams TheAFDGuy (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - this group had notability at its earlier stages, quite active in 1990s. It should be noted that virtually no-one outside of Wikipedia will use the name "Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)" to describe it, though, so googling that exact phrase won't turn up a lot of hits. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Delete When I do searches I really only find information regarding the Communist Party of Britain which seems to have disbanded in 1988. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – The CPGB (PCC) is a documented organisation within the British communist movement that emerged from splits around the collapse of the original CPGB and has participated in political campaigns, elections, and left-wing alliances. It has maintained a publication (Weekly Worker) and has been discussed in analyses of the UK revolutionary left. Small political parties and ideological organisations are routinely covered on Wikipedia when historically documented, which this clearly is. The article can be improved, but deletion is not warranted. — Herinalian (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Danielle Byrnes

Danielle Byrnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not include any sources, the only citation is a primary source which is controlled by the subject and likely means the subject is not notable enough for a whole article. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, and Australia. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletability/notability has nothing to do with whether the *currently listed* citations are good, or whether info is easy to find or searchable or currently online. Misunderstanding on that point is an epidemic on AfD. And no, the currently listed sources does not mean the subject is not notable...it simply means that current citations aren't good. That said, I put some effort into searching and I don't see anything significant. The nomination did not make a proper argument because it doesn't mention any steps or attempted actions or any concept of whether it's reasonable to think that no source exists anywhere in the world (and again regardless of being online). Also notability for people/biographies clearly includes awards (of a certain notability themselves), yet the nomination gives no indication of qualifying or scrutinizing that or any other standard. I would consider Deleting if there was proper argument and effort around qualified standards and research attempts and meaningful assertions and reasoning. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - poorly sourced; one external link is not enough for a BLP. For a BLP, the burden of proof is on the proponents of keeping it. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearian. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 08:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Did some googling I can't find anything that would pass WP:MODEL or WP:NBIO. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Monique Shippen

Monique Shippen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article only has WP:ONESOURCE and contains far more information than could be provided through that so likely uses a lot of original research which is prohibited per WP:NOR. It is very difficult to access the information this citation provides because it is a dead link. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Beauty pageants, and Australia. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Being difficult to access the info online does not show non-notability, although I agree on the other points PeriodicEditor (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough publications to pass WP:NMODEL and nothing else about her that is notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Margaret Cunzio

Margaret Cunzio (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/WP:NBIO and WP:POLITICIAN. The article is sourced mostly to primary official county/board/Legistar records, and after discounting those plus duplicate citations, the non-primary coverage appears to boil down to just three outlet - The Examiner News, Patch, and News 12 segment - which does not clearly establish significant independent secondary coverage. The creation history also raises a possible COI/SPA concern. Kqol • talk 23:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politicians, Health and fitness, Politics, and New York. Kqol • talk 23:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Conservatism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment — Per my talk page, I have a personal connection to the subject, so I'm not !voting. But I wanted to flag some independent sourcing that wasn't in the article at nomination and seems relevant to the GNG question.

WAMC (the Hudson Valley NPR affiliate) has at least four pieces by Allison Dunne where Cunzio appears as a named, quoted source as a central voice on local policy:

• Westchester County Exec Signs Lease For Biotech Center (Jan. 2019)
• Westchester Legislators Propose Law Regulating Secondhand Gems Dealers (May 2019), where she was Public Safety Committee chair and co-sponsor
• NYC DEP Rejects Westchester Request To Reopen Kensico Dam Road (Mar. 2020)
• Westchester County Exec Signs Property Tax Relief Measure (Apr. 2020)

There's also a full profile in The Inside Press from August 2024 by Deborah Raider Notis (link), and three Daily Voice pieces from 2017-2018:

• Immigrant Protection Act override vote (Sam Barron, Sept. 2017)
• Salary history ban (Jon Craig, Apr. 2018)
• Columbus Avenue rehabilitation (Zak Failla, Jun. 2018)

I'm not arguing the article is in good shape, it clearly needs work on tone and sourcing regardless. Just flagging that the independent coverage picture looks broader than three outlets once you go looking. Duffman59000 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the COI disclosure, but the surfaced sources don't get close to GNG. The WAMC and Daily Voice pieces are policy stories where Cunzio is merely quoted as a councilmember on bills (not WP:SIGCOV). The Inside Press profile isn't a reliable independent source either - it's a hyperlocal advertiser-supported lifestyle magazine whose own publisher's note disclaims liability for "sponsor-driven stories" running alongside editorial, and they maintain a "Political Advertorial" category - the uncritical, accomplishment-listing tone (mirrored in their cover story on the board's Democratic Chair Vedat Gashi) reads as community-PR, failing WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT regardless of WP:AUDKqol • talk 00:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Cunzio has been on the board for over a decade and is also relatively rare as a true third-party partisan officeholder in the United States vs. a Republican who also secured the Conservative ballot line (though it sounds like she runs on the Republican line as well). I think in light of that, the nomination undersells the potential merit of the article. I would judge the notability of this under NPOL #2. NPOL #2 states that major local political figures who have been written about in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I do not think that content in which a politician is merely quoted in their own media market meets or exceeds such a bar. So I think Cunzio would not fit under WP:NPOL. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Did some googling I don't think she has nearly enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Lorna Chávez

Lorna Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is quite poor in that it only has WP:ONESOURCE and given the lack of detail in that one source, the article likely uses original research which is prohibited per WP:NOR. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Costa Rica. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge With Miss International 1980 as an alternative to deletion. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ana Maria Duran Calisto

Ana Maria Duran Calisto (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)

Delete – Does not appear to be notable. The article does not comply with WP:GNG. Most of the sources are primary or institutional (university profiles, project pages, etc.), with only a few brief mentions in independent sources. Those mentions tend to be listings, author bios, or passing references, which don’t really count as significant coverage.

I couldn’t find any in-depth, independent discussion of her work in reliable secondary sources. The article also reads a lot like a CV, with detailed listings of positions, affiliations, and activities, which isn’t what an encyclopedia article should be.

Without stronger independent sources that actually focus on her, notability isn’t clearly demonstrated Taty2007 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, Environment, and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete While the current (indeed CV-like) state of the article is not relevant to the discussion, I agree that there is no indication that WP:NACADEMIC is met from available sources , and in general it does not look like her work has had much impact at all . Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 14:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I did some googling and personally I think her work is super interesting so I'm sad I can't find anything really to save the page--but most of the websites she is mentioned on do not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Shabbir Kumar

Shabbir Kumar (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 sufficient significant coverage to meet WP:NMG. History alone can't make him notable without sources per GNG. Ontor22 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, Music, and India. Ontor22 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - no convincing case was made in the nomination and I easily found various sources. Info I'm seeing points toward notability unless someone can refute it, not the other way around. Did the nominator search for significant coverage in appropriate places, and in appropriate languages and appropriate medium, and considering pre-internet media? Did the nominator have reason to believe that no sources exist anywhere in the world in any form? Has the nominator considered that the subject's time/era was mostly pre-internet, and made any effort at finding difficult-to-find searches? Is the nominator saying that the "hit" songs mentioned in the article are false? Lack of currently listed citations it not a case. Some basic facts in the article point much more toward notability than to deletion, if true. 4th largest newspaper in the world "interviewed" him (i.e. gave him a free editorial, it seems). Also India West (yes the outlet passes initial skepticism for notability itself). Also 3rd largest newspaper in India. Multiple points on the guidelines for musical figures are relevant: #11 because the singer is a PLAYBACK SINGER (somewhat like being a voice actor), they've performed on notable movies like this and also this and many more. Also NMG point #7 for playback singing, point #3 for sales, and others that I'm not interested in going into since zero case was made in the nomination. Indian Express, a notable English-language newspaper. We also have coverage in a 2,000,000+ subscriber newspaper that has existed since 1881. He was also on DD National We also have a rare case where a seeming trivial mention is more suggestive than trivial. People aren't going to find Shabbir Kumar covered in the New York Times. ABP live has done a couple fluffy articles on him, in translation it seems fluffy and content-farmy but the org is real, USA news/TV is not a universal standard for how we measure notability. In this comment I've only linked sources that are notable and on wikipedia (with notability themselves). EDIT: also BBC (a newer comment has linked it, but I had the tab open and forgot to add it here)

RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Your opinion is very detailed on the subject, which is admirable but I cannot take it forward on the basis of GNG. Your appropriate medium source is published from the subject's own website, which is not acceptable according to WP:SPS. The source of the world's 4th largest newspaper is published entirely on the subject's own story. See WP:NRV. The source of India West is Q & A based and Doordarshan National YouTube video interview which does not reveal anything significant. See WP:42. The 3rd largest source of India and the comment of Kishore Kumar of India Today which pushes towards trivial according to WP:PASSING. His appearance on the Indian Express show or the annual event on the 2,000,000+ subscriber newspaper (The Tribune) and the birthday special on ABP Live are routine news events of WP:NOTWHOSWHO which are not independent as per WP:ROUTINE. Points #3 (Sales), #7 (Playback Singing), #11 The mentions of Cultural Representative of WP:SINGER are only available in the self article and Wikipedia 1, 2. Can you please show a international, national or just a regional independent reliable source of these achievements? Having a bulk source as per WP:REFBOMB, or even a self story in the 3rd or 4th publication of the world, passing mentions fail to meet the criteria of WP:N. I did not consider any information to be false but rather Notability is not based on WP:WINRS. Still, I welcome more opinions/assessments than just my own point of view to keep the article alive. Ontor22 (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Let me skip to most important point, before getting to the rest: some of the strongest evidence for notability is, aside from the points in another person's comment here (and my own links to standard acceptable "reliable" outlets i.e. evidence of editorial oversight etc), that Kumar worked on and is credited on multiple famous notable movies (I linked them before), which is what one of the specific Music Bio Notability guidelines is about. The media on Kumar's personal website isn't self-published, it's scans of normal published material. (Someone could raise the question of if it was faked, but there's no reason to think it was, based on the many search hits.) In other words, it's strong evidence that should serve as encouragement for someone to catalog and verify those publications and add to the article where appropriate. It's similar to someone having a picture of a book..the picture-taker isn't the publisher, the picture suggests the existence of a normal publication. Sources don't have to be online or easily searchable. About the other links, I think your argument mistakenly hinges on how informative the various sources are rather than whether they suggest notability. I mean of the subject and the article's existence, I don't mean line by line, claim by claim, sourcing/citations is a different story. The who's who point/criticism in your comment isn't right, since those broadcasts weren't a random mention of a random guy connected to a notable event, they were about covering a known notable person. And to clarify, my many reference links were purely for notability not specific claims: they are not trivial on the question of notability, and I only linked pages/sources that show evidence of editorial oversight. Trivially informative doesn't mean a trivial attestation of notability, my point isn't that the reference shows he exists but rather that it shows About triviality: the article with the insult, which is only a passing mention of Shabbir Kumar, is not trivial, because it shows Kumar was a reference point of discussion... in other words it's like if the 3 Blind Mice Example on the GNG page was about Bill Clinton rather than the band, if a media article had a subject like "List of random bands connected to notable people"...the implication is that the person is notable, not the band (trivial). I would never use for notability itself, it's just an evidence/clue that spurs on further research. About the "published entirely on the subject's own story" part in your comment, that's not the meaningful point, the meaningful point is that the giant publication gave him "attention" aka coverage aka the piece, and it's not promotional marketing (using the relevant definition in wiki guidelines, let's ignore for the moment how often journalistic outlets serve as unofficial marketing). Note that I never heard of this person, or the style, or these outlets, and know almost nothing about India, I just clicked from AfD, and then found multiple normal acceptable newspapers/etc plus his involvement with famous notable movies.RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC).

Weak keep per RandomEditor6772314 TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as according to this reliable source here he has received 16 platinum records and 34 gold records which is a pass of WP:NMUSIC ctiteria 3, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Comment also meets WP:MUSICBIO#12, featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network, per this BBC live session. Note that the reliable and independent BBC calls the subject an "80's bollywood playback legend", and an "80s sensation", which supports a claim per WP:MUSICBIO#7 one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style, and the likelihood of offline sources from the 1980s. Also, there are numerous hits on both the Gale and Proquest news databases which does indicate WP:BASIC potential. ResonantDis_tortion 11:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per everything said above and my own searches he seems to be an extremely famous figure in the world of Indian music and cinema. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Singing Skylarks

Singing Skylarks (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 appear to be a notable NGO, no SIGCOV located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and India. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Didn't find anything to meet WP:NONPROFIT. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Strong Delete + Salt per BhikhariInformer, Salt Helps to Make The Delete More Clearer TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• User was blocked for adding bot-generated !votes. Striking Somepinkdude (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom LogosUnspoken (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete There are no sources and google searches don't turn up anything that meets WP:NORG. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

L.M.S. Law College, Imphal

L.M.S. Law College, Imphal (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:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Manipur. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Law-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dhanamanjuri University#Constituent colleges as an ATD-R. Found one useful source from Imphal Times but despite extensive searching, I couldn't find a second usable one. So, doesn't meet NSCHOOL and GNG with just one source. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Dhanamanjuri University#Constituent colleges per BhikhariInformer TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Since 2026

• Redirect per above as an alternative to deletion to Dhanamanjuri University#Constituent colleges. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Christian naturalism

Christian naturalism (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)

Most likely violates WP:NEWLLM. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I randomly checked 2 references. One checks out, but the other (Ref. 16) had an ISBN that resolves to an unrelated book. Fails WP:NEWLLM. The topic itself may be notable, but I think we should show no mercy when there are hallucinated references. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. TechBear (he/him) | Talk | Contributions 22:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Surendra Pal Singh

Surendra Pal Singh (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 couldn't find any evidence that the actor Surendra Pal, whose real name is Surendrapal Singh, is known as Surendra Pal Singh. If deleted, then the politician should be moved to base title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Disambiguations, and Uttar Pradesh. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Television, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Nice catch man! I too checked but couldn't find any evidence that the actor Surendra Pal is also known as Surendra Pal Singh. He isn't. So, the disambiguation page isn't needed. And as the nominator mentioned, the disambiguator should be removed from the name of the politician. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice Delete per BhikhariInformer TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and move per LaundryPizza03. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Unnecessary Disambiguation page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Religionless Christianity

Religionless Christianity (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)

Disclosed as being written with the help of Claude, most likely in violation of WP:NEWLLM. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Apparent violation of WP:NOLLM; strong indications of AI writing ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete The article states "The resulting ambiguity has made religionless Christianity one of the most debated concepts in twentieth-century theology" and yet there are zero references to this supposed debate. The references that are given have a suspicious inconsistency in quotation style and lack material to help track down the source material. A quick Google returns links that mostly point to a single book by a conservative radio host and author. TechBear (he/him) | Talk | Contributions 22:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEWLLM. Jumpytoo Talk 02:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Jumpytoo TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with nom and delete comments above. Asteramellus (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to above concerns, this whole thing seems like a wp:synth violation due to very few/no references to articles or literature that directly analyzes this topic. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:G15 (LLM-generated pages without human review) and WP:NOLLM. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  G15 cannot be applied unless at least one of a few very specific criteria is met, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - everybody knows that we are not a soapbox and we are not Grokpedia. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SYNTH seems like an essay rather than a actual subject deserving of a page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Roman Latković

Roman Latković (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)

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most citations are passing mentions in broader works about Balkan media or political history rather than in-depth coverage of the subject. The sourcing is insufficient to establish standalone notability. In addition to failing WP:GNG, the article reads as promotional and non-neutral (WP:NPOV), with extensive narrative language (“witch-hunt,” “mass hysteria”) and undue weight on recent publications and promoting personal projects— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidus1999 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 April 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 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Politics, and Croatia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - GPTZero gives me a 100% chance that the above AfD rationale was AI generated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I admit I can't find really meaty sources, but I found enough that prove that he is an author and does have a book sold by Barnes and Noble. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

State AI laws in the United States

State AI laws in the United States (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)

Per the edit summary, the page was created " (with Claude Opus 4.6 and edits)" which would appear to be evidence on its own of violating WP:LLMNEW JMWt (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Disclosed LLM content. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Artificial intelligence, Suspected AI-generated articles, California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEWLLM. Jumpytoo Talk 02:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Jumpytoo TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Per WP:G15. Having an article title with this would probably be good, but before a proper one is written, let's just blow it up and start over, and create an article without a Chatbot. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

How is this justifiable by G15 standards? That policy predates Wikipedia:NEWLLM and only operates in strict circumstances. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, unless there are concerns beyond AI use. I have reduced the article to a human-written stub, so LLM concerns no longer apply. I moved citations from the article to the talk page so they can be reviewed and reused by anyone wishing to expand the article with human-written content. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 22:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per LWG and WP:BEFOREG15. You don't need to delete the page to blow it up and start over, and you don't have to delete fully LLM-generated articles if someone is willing to stubify them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Bathwater, meet baby. There's been a significant change in the pagespace since nomination; the work has been properly stubified. Does en.wiki need an article on this topic? Yes. Is there anything offending in the current stub? No. Does section C of WP:BEFORE address this case? Absolutely. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it can only be proposed for merging as it is not a candidate for deletion. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I speedy delete dozens of LLM created articles every day. I hate this drek. Most of it should get the heave-ho. But in my opinion the problem is attribution. WP:5P2 tells us Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. LLMs can't be considered sufficiently advanced to have a human POV. Despite the vast complexity of their operating systems, LLMs respond to prompts, not own "views". WP:5P4 reminds us editors should treat each other with respect and civility. IMHO wikipedian users who utilize LLMs to write articles have failed our community in this regard. The subjects of articles deserve better than machine-written text. At the same time, it's foolish to ignore the facility LLMs bring to accumulating sources and data on complex, valid subject matters (as in this specific article's subject matter). BusterD (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think this is a topic that is very hard to be neutral about when basically the main narrative is from the White House and federal government who do not have regulatory responsibility for state laws. It's like a page talking about Greenland and taking WH briefings as having as much authority as international law.

  It seems to me that the only possible neutral article would be one that explained all the applicable laws in each state - which clearly isn't how this stub/page is set up. JMWt (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  You have determined the only workable outcome--ahead of any development. I am allowed to disagree with your determination. We're not even discussing the article you nominated anymore and the delete assertions above assess the original LLM mess (which no longer exists). As of this timestamp, we're discussing the potential of this stub. An easy keep for me. The way the nominated draft was created isn't relevant at all. BusterD (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I don't really care if a page was originally written by an LLM, the biggder questions after the LLM writing is if the subject is notable--I believe this subject is very notable and may potentionally be a very large page some day as laws limiting or regulating AI use increase. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. The subject is notable. Traditional AfD rules would suggest that the article would be kept. Now the real question is: Is it worth keeping this version of an article on this topic, because we want to keep the Claude-generated article in the article history as a reference for other editors (who may or may not have access to the same version of Claude), who can now use it as a basis to expand the article again (using whatever method)? Or is it preferable to give another editor a chance to create an "organic" stub- or start-class article that is then expanded (using whatever method or tools) later? Cielquiparle (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  If I were fixing this version I would create a table, essentially starting a list article on the topic. Or start individual sections for the main states that have AI laws. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  If keeping the Claude-generated version of the article in the article history is OK, another WP:ATD is to redirect to Regulation of AI in the United States, which already overlaps significantly on this topic. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Corona, Canterbury Cathedral

The Corona, Canterbury Cathedral (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)

The chapel (which is not functionally separate from the main cathedral church) is described in Canterbury Cathedral, so this article just duplicates the content. DougieMcC (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Canterbury Cathedral#Trinity Chapel and Shrine of Thomas Becket The content is indeed fully duplicated, down to the only source the article uses, already present in the cathedral article. Since it is also better presented and sourced there, I do not think there is anything to merge. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 14:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  This seems a sensible solution DougieMcC (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Canterbury Cathedral#Trinity Chapel and Shrine of Thomas Becket per above. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Play65

Play65 (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)

Tagged for notability concerns since 2011. Not a single source currently present meets the requirements at WP:SIRS. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Israel. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. It was the world’s biggest backgammon site. There are many sources. It has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, such as Ynet, Haaretz and The Independent. See: Teterev53 (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Not a single source you provided satisfies the requirements at WP:SIRS; the one or two reliable ones are examples of WP:CORPTRIV. The Independent source doesn't even mention the company by name. AusLondonder (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• It is mentioned: which operates the Play 65 internet site. Teterev53 (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem like this backgammon site is active anymore which I think means this is not a WP:LASTING page per notability standards. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Agnieszka653 TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with nom and Agnieszka653. Fails WP:ORGCRIT Searches show only trivial coverage. Asteramellus (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pantaleon of Pydna

Pantaleon of Pydna (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 assumed this historical person was notable, but at least in English I see virtually nothing. Existed ( ), but that's about it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, and Greece. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I note this was previously nominated four years ago with no consensus, which I only noticed after I made the nomination. @Ficaia included these sources: 1, 2, 3, which seem to say the same thing as the other mentions I cited above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, per my comments in the last deletion discussion. There is simply no secondary source coverage beyond just the single sentence which comes directly from the primary source; he doesn't meet GNG. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced by Agnieszka's suggestion of a merge with Alexander the Great below. Book-length biographies of Alexander don't mention, or barely mention, Pantaleon; including him in our article on Alexander looks like completely undue weight. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge ? with Alexander the Great as an alternative to deletion? Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Agnieszka653 could you suggest where in that article we should merge? I don't know what a natural place in that biography for these biographical details would be. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Possibly the section on Egypt--specifically regarding the city of Memphis? Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is merging to Alexander the Great wise? That is one of the most notable persons in history; his biography should probably not be a list of random officials he appointed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge per Agnieszka653 TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Strike troll. Geschichte (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Sandstein. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Karin Ophir

Karin Ophir (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 GNG Uncle Bash007 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Shaike Ophir#Personal life, where she is mentioned. Probably notable in her own right but pointless one-line stub. gidonb (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per Gidonb TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hamsey Green

Hamsey Green (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)

One source, no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search seems to back that up Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 10:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 10:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• It is an OS settlement so may qualify as legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect- to Sanderstead as an ATD, not finding enough SIGCOV for standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please consider the user / reader in the decision to absorb Hamsey Green into the Sanderstead article. A merge may leave the reader confused; for example, mention of the Good Companions public house contradicts the statement that Sanderstead has no pubs, while the link from Warlingham states “Warlingham ... includes Hamsey Green to the north”. I believe a separate article on Hamsey Green can resolve these tautologies and leave the reader enlightened and better informed. An article on Hamsey Green will always be of low importance, but I believe its quality could be improved to meet Wikipedia’s standards and compliments other articles linked to it. For example, the LOOP reader benefits from knowing Hamsey Green’s amenities and history. In my opinion, the former private Hamsey Green airfield and Hamsey Green Primary school are not substantial enough to have Wikipedia pages but are worthy of mention in Wikipedia to improve List of Royal Air Force Glider units and Nick Owen. Both these are in Warlingham, not Sanderstead with the primary school funded by Tandridge, as is the collocated Warlingham School. OldCroydonian (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just because having an article on it may be WP:USEFUL, that doesn't mean that it is notable, thence that it should have its own dedicated article. Related pages won't be protected after a redirect; if it is redirected, someone can remove the link to HG from the Warlingham page. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 08:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation; it's much appreciated! To confirm, my concern was over the links not the deletion of the article. OldCroydonian (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• comment OS references are not good enough as they are applied to too many classes of of places. In this case it looks to be a neighborhood of a larger place. We need some textual sourcing. Mangoe (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sanderstead per Lorraine Crane TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Taumata o Kupe

Taumata o Kupe (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)

There is little independent sourcing covering this learning centre with the article being promotional e.g. 'It takes a contemporaneous approach with an aerodynamic feel of modern racing yachts'. The main sources in the article provide a lot of text but a lot of it is not about the subject and falls into a heavily promotional tone, with one of the main sources being a masters thesis, which is not considered a reliable source typically. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: The article itself could perhaps use work, but the building appears to meet WP:GNG, with significant coverage in The Guardian, the New Zealand Herald, , , and Te Ao News. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  The sources all focus on one event (the award) and many of the sources are made up primarily of quotes, which are not independent. Property news in New Zealand is heavily made of up back-door deals and contacts as opposed to legitimate journalism and the writing shows that. Articles need to be neutral and if the only sources are non-independent and promotional then it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Traumnovelle: I completely agree with your point about property news in New Zealand, but I don't think this article and its sources are a good example of the issue. I would highlight:

  • The article in The Guardian is written by Oliver Wainwright, a British architecture and design critic. I make it 8 paragraphs in that article dedicated to Taumata o Kupe, of which 2 contain quotes.
  • These two articles in The New Zealand Herald are both written by Kelvin McDonald, who works with Te Ao Māori News / Whakaata Māori; yes, the first article includes the architect's own description of the building, but it also includes factual content about the building itself (when it was opened, who came up with the idea, etc) and quotes from the awards judging panels. The second article is about the building being shortlisted in the World Architecture Festival Awards in Singapore (so entirely different again from the two awards highlighted in the article).
  • This article in Te Ao News relates to the same awards win as that first New Zealand Herald article. Although it does include quotes from the architect and marae spokesman, it's factual in tone and in my view contributes to WP:GNG.

  On the other hand, this New Zealand Herald article is written by the property editor. There's some factual content in the article (particularly the bulleted list towards the end) which could be of use, but I agree it arguably doesn't to notability for the reasons you set out (it's promotional in tone and does rely heavily on statements by persons connected to the building, such as the architect).

  All up, while there might be some sourcing issues, I remain of the view that the building is notable. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets GNG. The building has won two (not one as asserted above) significant national awards for architecture and design, including the best building in the public architecture category of the NZIA national awards, as well as being shortlisted at the 2024 World Architecture Festival. Paora (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Paora TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Strike troll. Geschichte (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Found this write up in the Guardian: []. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Which is already cited in the article extensively. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Alexey Mikhaylov (economist)

Alexey Mikhaylov (economist) (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)

Per WP:NPROF: No obvious notability except, possibly, multiple retractions: see Михайлов, Алексей Юрьевич (1987) [ru]. A nomination for deletion in Russian Wiki Википедия:К удалению/29 января 2025#Михайлов,_Алексей_Юрьевич_(1987) [ru] is dangling since Jan 2025. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, verging on Speedy Keep, then remove the masses of bloat and peacock. Based upon his GS profile he has 11.5K cites and an h-factor of 62, so passes WP:NPROF. If the nom withdraws the AfD (as I expect a SNOW) ping me and I can clean it -- I am reluctant to do this while it is at AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears that the main claim to notability is through WP:PROF#C1 and heavy citations, but there are also serious concerns with the authorship integrity of his publications that have led to at least three retractions . Additionally, his GS profile shows some publications with strange topics considering his main interests to be the economics of climate change and energy supply: emotional development in preschoolers? Polymer film coatings? With this as background I would want to see more than primary/non-independent sourcing both for his prominence as a researcher and for the retractions before allowing this as a WP:BLP. In short, I think biographies of researchers for whom we have believable evidence of malfeasance should be held to a higher standard, especially when that alleged malfeasance undermines the claim to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  David, while the topic range is odd, if you check the address it is the same. While I note the retractions, these are because the corresponding author stated that they were not affiliated with the paper, or the journal could not verify them. While I agree that is dubious, it is not major academic dishonesty in terms of fabrication of data, misrepresentation etc. I think we have to be careful about WP:NPOV in our judging of the authorship issue. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Some researchers really do have disparate collections of interests. Some researchers have odd citation topics because they buy authorships on papers that they did not contribute to and are not in their actual expertise. I am not doubting that the GS profile really does list papers whose authors include the subject of our article. Rather, this is part of the evidence of a dubious pattern of authorship, for which the retractionwatch listing of retractions specifically made for the reason of authorship integrity problems is much stronger evidence. And if we have reason to believe that some of those authorships may have been illegitimate then we have less reason to rely purely on those authorships as a rationale for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Incidentally the three retractions listed in the database are all in Scientific Reports. There are also two in Energy Exploration & Exploitation, one in Frontiers in Environmental Science, one in Environmental Research Communications, and one in Evolutionary Intelligence all for reasons of authorship integrity. The Evolutionary Intelligence retraction notice specifically discusses purchased authorships and subversion of the peer review process. Another paper of his in Investment Management and Financial Innovations was retracted for plagiarism. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I understand your concerns, but I remain enough of a Brit that I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I have zero tolerance for deliberate fabrication or duplication of existing work, which we know occurs and rarely gets caught; I do not view this as being as major as either of those. My personal opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm certainly not going to commit to an opinion on whether Mikhaylov is personally responsible for academic malfeasance or merely too trusting in his coauthors. However, I think this makes it dubious to argue for notability purely through citation counts, and it also leaves us with a BLP dilemma that deletion would avoid: do we dishonestly pretend there is no problem with his portfolio even though there clearly is one, or do we use primary evidence for that problem that may well not meet our BLP standards? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  See also the article and line 222 ("Global Indicators of Sustainable Development: Evaluation of the Influence of the Human Development Index on Consumption and Quality of Energy" ) of its supplementary material . Neodiprion demoides (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I read 3 of the materials science papers which are within my realm of incompetence. While I would not write them, they appear to be decent, I have seen much worse. I can see a rationale for his inclusion, as the economics of a particular technology really matters, and that is where he seems to have some expertise. (As an example, there are papers on using carbon-nanotubes to reinforce asphalt for roads which, in terms of $$$$, is absurd.) I will remove the "Speedy Keep" from my comment, but I still am not fully convinced. (I could not reach the SM above, or it was in Russian when I looked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The only potential path to notability would be through WP:PROF#C1, on the basis of citations, and we have reason to believe that the citation counts may not be meaningful. This is not a statement that Mikhaylov is personally culpable for academic misconduct, or anything like that. It's just a recognition that any topic needs some indication of notability to be considered notable, and here we have no indicator that we can rely on. We commonly discount citation numbers for middle authors on massively co-authored papers, or for work done as a graduate student: the citation number might be big, but we have no way to know if the individual author's contribution was truly significant. This is a more extreme instance of the same problem: there are too many question marks floating around the citation counts for us to base a judgment upon them. The safe course of action, particularly where WP:BLP is concerned, is not to have an article. When in doubt, write nothing. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - per David Eppstein that researchers/academics who have had significant integrity problems documented need to have additional independent evidence of significance of their other work and that depedent sources we generally accept not for notability but for fact checking such as institutional websites and news should not be accepted. Maybe we can make this a new precedent in WP:PROF -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  If anything, there has already been a similar nomination / deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Salavati-Niasari. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per Mscuthbert TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Striking blocked user TheAFDGuy's comment -- account jumped to random AfDs and chose a user and echo'd their vote with citation every 2 minutes; probably Bot account + LLM. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Per above doesn't have enough publications to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Steven K. Hudson

Steven K. Hudson (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)

Restored from PROD (for which it was nominated by User:InfernoHues); I tend to agree that the subject, as presented, does not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 18:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. BD2412 T 18:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I did find some sources (that aren't in the article) [1][2], but even with those, I don't think it meets WP:NBASIC. The first one is based on an interview. The second one does quote Hudson frequently, but has some background info. Regardless, you need multiple good sources for NBASIC or GNG. Also, the article creator has a suspicious edit history. They've only ever edited the two pages they created and Vince Tyra. InfernoHues (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I originally draftified the article before PRODing it, but this was also moved back to main by the creator without a response. InfernoHues (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Non-notable business executive. MediaKyle (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per MediaKyle TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete feels like WP:PROMO. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Red Pine Dam

Red Pine Dam (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)

The reservoir report / Snoflo source gives decent information about the dam but all the other sources I can find simply mention it as a feature to see on hiking trails. I propose merging this article with Red Pine Lake as I cannot find enough sources to suggest they are both sufficiently notable for two independent articles. Mgp28 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Geography, United States of America, and Utah. Mgp28 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. No need for two separate stubs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per Pi.1415926535 TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Red Pine Lake per nomination as an alternative to deletion. Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Berkeleytrione

Berkeleytrione (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)

Compound has little references or coverage outside of the paper of its original discovery and limited secondary coverage (ACS link). Likely warrants a section on the Berkeley Pit page, but any notability is mostly from their unusual origins in the aforementioned pit and not any applications or ongoing development. Fishsicles (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Berkeleydione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Berkelic acid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of chemistry-related AfD discussions. Fishsicles (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This does not have sufficient coverage to warrant a page yet.Deetailz (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• ** Delete + Salt ** per Deetailz TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep berkelic acid. A Google Scholar search reveals several published syntheses of berkelic acid and an independent study of its cytotoxicity. Neutral on the other two, which have less attention outside the work of Stierle & Stierle. Choess (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I am pretty much opposed to deleting any page that refers to a chemical compound or scientific concept in general. Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Choess, there appears to be a lot of sources. Scholar does indeed have plenty of published synthesis, and there are mentions in a huge number of books too. Not just mentions. For instance . That's not a huge mention, but it is in the section heading and is described. Perhaps a case could be made for a merge, but the range of the books hits makes me unsure on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Alireza Mashaghi

Alireza Mashaghi (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)

Highly promo page for an associate professor in pharmacology. His h-factor is 39, citations 6.4K in a high citation field, so definitely too low for WP:NPROF. No significant awards from his peers; his infobox lists two awards without sources that are not mentioned in the text. I see no SIGCOV in a WP:Before. Ignoring the (annoying) writing style, it is WP:TOOSOON by some years. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Chemistry, Medicine, Physics, and Germany. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• comment Roughly, one third of his publications are on topology. The field of low dimensional topology is not a citation heavy field and top researchers even at the time of retirement may not reach more than 1K citations. Sangak ^Talk 18:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, A key national/public figure in Iranian Science. KIA is the highest national honour for an academic there, and recognises national impact. This is beyond academic rank and metrics such as h-index. Livingdroplet (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Recognition as a KIA Laureate directly satisfies WP:NPROF criterion 2 as a highly prestigious national academic award, akin to top prizes in other nations that confer notability. Additionally, he is widely known in Persian media for his pioneering of dual-degree education programs in Iran, which trained thousands of students nationwide over decades and reshaped higher education access/infrastructure (as documented in Persian Wikipedia based on Persian sources), meets criterion 4 of WP:NPROF via substantial impact on academic institutions. Livingdroplet (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, for now. Give him another three or four years and he may well qualify, as he's on an upward slope. All of his well cited papers have lots of authors, which for me is not a good sign. Athel cb (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree. Deetailz (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep First of all, thanks for notifying me. I understand the concern regarding bibliometrics under WP:NPROF, and agree that the case may appear borderline when assessed purely on citation metrics (which can vary significantly across disciplines he is active in). In this particular case, however, WP:NPROF is not required where WP:GNG is met. The “no SIGCOV per WP:Before” assessment may be incomplete. The subject is a receipt of Khwarizmi award, the most notable and the highest national honor of science in Iran and West Asia (given jointly by UNESCO), has generated independent coverage and constitutes strong evidence of notability (and may satisfy WP:NPROF criterion #3 if sourced). Missing citations in the current version are a WP:V issue, not a notability failure. This is fixable. I also appreciate the WP:TOOSOON concern, but given existing national-level recognition and coverage, notability does not seem purely prospective here. Notability does not require seniority either, where SIGCOV exists. In sum, the subject meets WP:GNG and I recommend Keeping and improvement, not deletion. Plectoneme (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment, note that none of the claims about about the KIA award, his education efforts in Iran and SIGCOV is present in the article, and none of it comes up in a Google Search. If these claims are correct, they need to be verified by reliable sources in the document so that WP:HEY becomes relevant.
  • Response, Thank you. Nearly all available sources are in Persian. I found a few English sources and have now included them, including one showing him receiving the award from the President. Plectoneme (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Those go some distance, but I am not convinced as yet. (Admittedly the major peacock on the page does not help.)

  1. I do not see either of your sources [22] or [23] indicate what role he had in interdisciplinary, beyond a (GS translate) statement in [22] "This required a change in the country's laws, which we succeeded in doing". I am not convinced how notable helping to have an interdisciplinary course is, this is something academics do routinely, WP:MILL. Ref [23] says nothing on this and appears to be irrelevant.
  2. Ref [24] is not right, it should be the KIA Bulleting. Ref [25] does not mention him and appears to be irrelevant.
  3. It is not obvious that Khwarizmi International Award meets the bar for WP:NPROF#C2 or WP:NPROF#C3. There was recently a related discussion at WT:NPROF#International National Academies and C3 which came to no general consensus, only that such decisions must be made on a case by case basis.

  Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback.

  RE 1. Sources [22] and [23] are brief, but they do explicitly attribute to his efforts to enable double degree parallel studies. In particular, [23] states that he “managed to provide the opportunity for elite students to study in two majors at the same time.” While the coverage is not extensive, this reflects a change at the level of national higher education policy rather than routine academic activity. Given the centralized nature of university admissions in Iran, such changes are not typically implemented at the level of individual institutions, and involve two ministries of science and health. I agree the sourcing could be stronger, but the available sources do indicate involvement in a reform that extends beyond ordinary academic duties.

  RE 2: Reference [24] is not the primary source for the claim but is a reliable international outlet and includes him explicitly (including visual identification). Reference [25] was included to provide context about the award itself rather than to document his receipt of it (we can remove it if this is not useful). The direct attribution is supported by the scan of the award certificate and announcement from his lab page, which can be added (https://www.mashaghilab.org/news). Taken together, the sources establish both the existence of the award and his receipt of it. Thanks. 19:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Plectoneme (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  In response to request by @Ldm1954, I found a new evidence further supporting point RE 1, on education reform in Iran. An interview on this matter was published by Hamshahri Newspaper which is a major national newspaper. I translate a part of it which makes the case:

  Article published by Hamshahri Newspaper 17 January 2018:

  Interview with A. Mashaghi:

  My most important achievement in Iran was the setting the stage for interdisciplinary education and research. In iran, my efforts led to a major reform in the country’s education system, and made it possible for students to take two study tracks simultaneously.

  [.....]

  Me and my colleague [name indicated] submitted a proposal to the ministry of science, requesting legal permission for studying in two state universities at once. We believed that this will stimulate innovation in medicine as well as in science and engineering disciplines. This reform was however facing many serious legal barriers, and it took us years to make it happen. .... Plectoneme (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  By policy, interviews are not considered as reliable for notability WP:42. see WP:Interviews. I personally do not like this, but it is a firm consensus that we cannot fight. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I am not convinced that the award provides automatic notability. The h-indexes of 6 out of 8 other awardees in 2025, 23, 27, 57, 17, 19, 14. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  This intrepretation is not correct. The Khwarizmi Award has several categories. In 2025, he was the only recipient named a KIA Laureate, which is the highest honour. Those you listed were Khwarizmi Prize awardees in junior or senior categories, and there is even a student category. The prestigious KIA title has been given to Ali Khademhosseini, Majid Samii, Tofy Mussivand to give a few examples, all very influential Iranian scientists.Plectoneme (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  To further clarify: Of course, notability is not determined solely by metrics such as h-index or specific discoveries; being a public figure with major national impact can also establish notability. For example, you mentioned Saeed Sohrabpour, who received the Khwarizmi Award (not KIA laureate) in recognition of his long-time role as president of the country’s leading university. This is also reflected in his election as a foreign associate of the US National Academy of Engineering, “for establishing Sharif University as an academic center of excellence and advancing engineering and science education in Iran.” I hope this clarifies it now. Thanks. 08:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC) Plectoneme (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I consulted this file which lists 9 recipients in 2025 (pp.9-17). The award given to Mashaghi is The Second Place Basic Research. Some people who receive these awards are notable, but this doesn't mean that all who receive them are notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. This helps the discussion. I understand that this is confusing, as the document only briefly mentions the international section and does not elaborate on it.

  1) You are referring to a list of 9 people, and understandably it may appear that 9 individuals received comparable awards. This is not accurate. For example, the award to M Nazari is shared among a group of 8 researchers (similar for others). So these entries should not be interpreted as equivalent individual recognitions. These are 8 project awards and one service award.

  2) The Khwarizmi Award also has an international category, the named KIA Laureate title, which is awarded to individuals and is generally considered the most prestigious distinction within this framework, and the highest science honour given by the President. This section is only briefly mentioned in the document, which understandably leads to confusion. Typically, every year, one gets the KIA laureate title and you can see the KIA laureate of 37th round (İlhami Gülçin), 36th round (Jean-Laurent CASANOVA), 34th round (Mohammad Khaja Nazeeruddin) etc at the end of the document. These are all very high profile scientists. Mashaghi received both the Khwarizmi Award in Basic Research for "his work on topology" and the 38th KIA laureate title via the international section, "in recognition of his excellent contributions to scientific research (see the link above)". I hope this clarifies it. Plectoneme (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Provide sources that verify your claims. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Scan of the award certificate linked above. He is the 38th KIA Laureate. 15:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC) Plectoneme (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  The scan doesn't show that he is more special than 8 other people who received the award. It also doesn't demonstrate that he has received some special title of "KIA laureate", which is distinct from the one I mentioned above and which is "considered the most prestigious distinction". Kelob2678 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you believe this is incorrect, please provide evidence showing that any of those individuals received an equivalent designation, specifically, the 38th KIA Laureate title via the international section, with the wording “in recognition of his excellent contributions to scientific research.” KIA Laureates from previous rounds have consistently had international affiliations, and this case follows the same pattern, with an affiliation in the Netherlands. 16:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC) Plectoneme (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Despite limited access to sources (internet issues), I found an interview with the head of the organising institute that provides additional clarification on the structure of the award.

  1- It confirms that there is a distinct international section of the KIA award.

  2- According to the interview, the international section is open exclusively to two groups: Iranians living abroad and non-Iranian researchers.

  3- It also notes that an Iranian-Dutch scientist received the award.

  4- The interview further states that the international award involves a competitive selection process from approximately 200–700 nominations across more than 30 countries. Given that one or two awards are granted per cycle, this indicates a highly selective process.

  In sum, this confirms that recipients of the international section are based outside Iran, which distinguishes this category from the domestic awardees referenced earlier in the discussion. For your information, the KIA laureates (the intrenational section)include: The 39th round was given to Qichun Zhang (Hong Kong), 38th Alireza Mashaghi (Netherlands), 37th round to İlhami Gülçin (Turkey), 36th round to Jean-Laurent CASANOVA (USA), ….Plectoneme (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Page 8 of the file I linked says, The Laureates of the 38th Khwarizmi International Award, on page 32, it also says that 467 people applied. So yes, he is a laureate of the international award. But this doesn't explain how the award is significant enough to include him based on it. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Very well-known scientist. See his name mentioned within the list of 32 most notable scientists from Iranian diaspora. Iran, the Phoenix Awakens: From the Ashes of Her Ancient Glory, a Noble Nation Rises Anew. ISBN 9798902227878 (BOOK). I checked them and all of those 32 names have pages on Wikipedia. Endothelialcell110 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Numerous Farsi news sites report on this professor’s research work and achievements. These are not interviews and not self-published texts, but independent media coverage. They often describe him as a leading scientist and give some biographical-style context about his academic career and research impact. Only in MehrNews, a search of his name results in 6 articles, which is a notable coverage. This is not just a local newspaper but large scale national news agency. Many other examples can be found in google search: Etemad SNN

  they show independent coverage beyond primary publications, which can support a WP:GNG-based KEEP argument. Endothelialcell110 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: can we please keep to policy issues in this discussion. In particular, the claim that his award is notable must be supported by reliable sources, it is not enough to make statements. I have to somewhat agree with Kelob2678 that the case for the award being sufficiently notable has not as yet been made. Via WP:BURDEN the responsibility is on Plectoneme and others who are supporting Keep to provide sources. This is particularly the case since he works in Germany, so the most obvious comparison is to his peers in Germany. On that basis his record to date does not pass WP:NPROF.Ldm1954 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Some clarifications: The conclusion that WP:NPROF is not met seems premature. It has not been demonstrated that criteria 1, 2, 3, or 4 are not satisfied in this case. h-index and citation counts are not decisive under WP:NPROF, as they vary widely by field and do not by themselves determine notability. The KIA award question is still under discussion, and incomplete sourcing in the article does not itself demonstrate lack of notability under WP:BURDEN. The comparison to “peers in Germany” is not part of WP:NPROF criteria. At this stage, the concerns raised relate to sourcing, but do not demonstrate a clear failure of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG.Plectoneme (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Plectoneme, I completely disagree with most of this. and it is not in accord with concensus and policy about academics. The use of h-index and citation counts is completely standard. As has been discussed many times at WT:NPROF, the metric is comparison to peers. As stated he works in a high citation field, and the way to judge that is by his co-authors and peers. The first 5 in his co-author list are Reza Dana, h-factor/citations of 114/61K; Sander J. Tans: 48/24K; Marcus Hans Textor, 99/36K; Mischa Bonn 116/46K; and Ron Heeren 78/24K. This is known as the Average professor test. In mathematics his citation record would be considered very notable; in history amazing, but in his area his record of 39/6K is decisively below average.

  The only possible claim under WP:NPROF is based upon his KIA award. However, as has been already stated there is no evidence that this is of the level that meets WP:NPROF#C2. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  As an added point you argued that a comparison to his peers in Germany is incorrect. Everyone recognises that outside of Europe, the US, Japan etc research can be much harder. Therefore achievements in Africa, the Middle East and similar should not be compared to, for instance, a scientist working at Harvard. However, he did his research at top universities in the US and Europe, and now works at one ranked #70 in the World University Rankings 2026. His peers are others from top institutions. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  The reliance on h-index and citation comparisons here seems overstated relative to policy. While bibliometrics can provide context, they are not part of the criteria in WP:NPROF, nor does the guideline define thresholds or require comparison to co-authors. The “average professor test” is an essay-level heuristic, not binding policy, and should not be treated as determinative in an AfD. In addition, the specific bibliometric comparison presented appears methodologically flawed. Mashaghi’s primary contributions that gives him international notability are in molecular topology/topological chemistry theory, not mass spectrometry (Heeren) or ophthalmology (Dana), surface science (Textor) etc. There is also a clear age mismatch: several decades older subjects (up to 4 decades!). On that basis, the conclusion that the subject is “decisively below average” is not well supported, even on bibliometric grounds. More broadly, the Netherlands and Dutch Research Council (NWO) moved away from bibliometrics in evaluations, long ago, so heavy reliance on them here is questionable. Mashaghi appears to be a pioneer with international recognition in his field, as per citations within the article and evidences provided in this AfD page.Plectoneme (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is your interpretation, which does not conform with standards at AfD for academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Even if the use of bibliometric measures were valid, a more relevant benchmark would be the records of scientists such as co-authors Flapan and Adams, both world-renowned academics working in chain topology. They have citation counts/h-indexes of 1,500/22 and 4,900/28, respectively, and are both more than 20 years older than him. You reach a similar conclusion when looking at other recent co-authors who are more physics-oriented and have worked on polymer topology. Mashaghi has made a substantial contribution to the field and is internationally known for it. Plectoneme (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Within this area, researchers such as Joanna Sułkowska (citations/h-index = 5215/41)are also commonly cited as leading figures. Plectoneme (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Again, you are selectively quoting facts to support a non-WP:NPOV interpretation. Both Erica Flapan and Colin Adams are mathematicians, where citations numbers are lower, are FAMS which is an accepted pass of WP:NPROF#C3, and have other major international peer recognition.

  Please check WP:Avoid other stuff exists, the type of argument you are using is not new, and not appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I'd like to refer to his work on the development of single molecule & topology analyses of protein/molecular folds/knots: satisfies WP:NPROF criterion 1 for significant impact on knot theory and topological chemistry. Featured in ACS Central Science (2020) and Notices of AMS (2021), with independent uptake by other research groups (e.g., Komatsu/Koga/Berx (2025), Lin/Ahnert (2026), Garcia/ Reid/Robustelli (2025), Gabrovšek/Simonič/Niemyska (2026), Diamantis/Kauffman/Lambropoulou (2025), Cangiotti/Grasso(2025), etc). It received good media coverage, like in Dutch newspapers (Leidsch Dagblad 2024) and other outlets. Sangak ^Talk 18:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I am providing additional line of evidence for WP:NPROF. His lab’s development of organ chips for viral hemorrhagic fever (Ebola, Lassa, Dengue etc), received several independent coverage in review articles. Some examples are listed here:

1) In a 2024 review article in Nature Microbiology on “Organ-on-chip models for infectious disease research”, one paragraph is dedicated to works from Mashaghi lab.

2) A 2023 review article in Organ-on-a-chip on “Advancements in organs-on-chips technology for viral disease and anti-viral research” by Longlong Si et al., featured works from his lab (Ebola and Lassa) in the timeline of pioneering works in organ chip for virology (Figure 2).

3) 2021 review article in Nature Medicine on “Developing therapeutic approaches for twenty-first-century emerging infectious viral diseases” refered to his lab work along with two others as “Major advances”:

“Major advances in human organ-on-a-chip and stem cell research have also occurred over the past two decades, affording relevant primary human tissues from different organs that are infected by RNA viruses”.

4) A 2024 review paper in Nature Reviews Bioengineering on “Microfluidic high-throughput 3D cell culture” also explicitly covered his work.

5) A 2021 review in Accounts of Chemical Research on “Microfluidic Organs-on-a-Chip for Modeling Human Infectious Diseases” pointed to his work.

These independent secondary sources demonstrate that his work is incorporated into field-level scholarly synthesis, which is relevant to WP:NPROF criterion 1. Plectoneme (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:Cherrypicking. Academic notability is measured by wide community concensus which is reflected by citations. It is not demonstrated by mention in a few review articles. He conclusively fails WP:NPROF#C1 based upon his citation record, please stop trying to twist concensus. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not think the “cherry-picking” characterization is accurate here. The evidence presented above points to sustained, coherent lines of research rather than isolated favorable examples. His record appears to include a continuing interdisciplinary program bridging cell mechanics and biomedicine, and the work using organ-chip models for Ebola, Lassa, and Dengue appears to fit within that same mechanopathology agenda as a methodological platform, not as a separate unrelated topic. This accounts of nearly 40% of his papers since 2020. I can take other examples from his mechanics work and show the same level of reception by peers.

Likewise, the topology-related publications appear to represent another recurring interdisciplinary line connecting topological concepts with biomedicine. This accounts for 55% of his papers since 2020. Plectoneme (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tamga (fintech company)

Tamga (fintech company) (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)

Unclear if there's enough for WP:NCORP. Previously draftified - Draft:Tamga (company) KH-1 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I draftified the other version of this article for not meeting WP:NCORP. The creator recreated it with less sources than the original. InfernoHues (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - I expanded the page and added new sources. Tucker Qatarlson (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Those sources are not WP:ORGIND. The Forbes article is listed as a sponsored content, World Business Outlook is a press release and the other sites like Flux are advertorials for Tamga products.-KH-1 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Typical corpospam. Add it to the pile. MediaKyle (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Not making any accusation, but could be an instance of WP:PAID. Could also be WP:COI, if so please read the guideline. First creation, first edit, nothing else than this article creation... The references are far from enough, and the fact that you searched as far as Polish content to create it suggests it's not the first time you're creating a wikipedia article. Still not enough. Global Donald (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with User:KH-1 that the article does not have enough independent sources. In addition to the sources mentioned, Techreviewer.co is an aggregator, not a reliable source. See spamcheck for tamga.com - another editor tried to create an article about this company previously and got blocked for likely WP:COVERT advertising (User talk:CalmBeacon#Request to unblock). Dreamyshade (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Most sources appear to be company-controlled material, job listings, or routine product announcements rather than independent, in-depth coverage of the company itself. The article reads largely as a corporate profile describing products, services, and expansion activities. Without multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the company as a subject, standalone notability is not demonstrated. — Herinalian (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ramayana in popular culture

Ramayana in popular culture (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 propose merging into Ramayana, it seems unnecessary as a standalone article. FaviFake (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Popular culture. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Religion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Delete I’ve performed a massive cleanup of this page, removing all the unreferenced trivia and commercial SEO cruft to see if it could be salvaged. However, I believe this should be deleted rather than merged. The Ramayana is an ancient foundational epic; it should not be treated as a commercial vehicle for streaming platforms or a directory for the latest "retellings" and pop-culture adaptations. Merging this would just bloat the main article with content that is fundamentally at odds with its encyclopedic and historical purpose. If the content isn't notable enough to stand alone without becoming a commercial dumping ground, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all.

  Video game is absolutely ridiculous. If there were ancient people using a story form like Ramayana and Mahabarata to try and educate generations about life principles, it should stay that way, instead of pop culture nonsense. Just my opinion! Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  But presence of Ramayana in popular culture is so deep. Why this page shouldn't be there ? Stage Movies, TV and so on. MarSteGeo (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  That is but a classic appeal to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not a serious argument for deletion. Gotitbro (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Ramayana#In popular culture as an ATD-M. Everything was fine until two days back, an user decided to WP:SPLIT the article and create an unnecessary WP:CFORK. A separate page isn't supported here per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:UNDUE. So, make everything as it was before 19th April, when the article was forked out. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Popular culture was added by me. Nothing was there except stage. MarSteGeo (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Per WP:NOPAGE, this article has no reason to exist. Zalaraz (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with Zalaraz above. On Ramayana#Popular Culture, maybe list only notable pages and add Template:Category see also for the related categories for that section. Don't see a need to add indiscriminate list in Ramayana#Popular Culture section. Asteramellus (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The topic itself is notable with plenty a academic coverage (e.g. Pauwels, Heidi R. M. (2008). The Goddess as Role Model: Sita and Radha in Scripture and on Screen. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536990-8.; Dhar, Aarttee Kaul. “The Ramayana and Sita in Films and Popular Media: The Repositioning of a Globalised Version.” Chapter. In The Return of the Epic Film: Genre, Aesthetics and History in the 21st Century, edited by Andrew Elliot, 201–15. Edinburgh University Press, 2014.).

So, the standalone topic is certain for notability (regardless of article quality). Also I don't agree with Niranjan's bizarre rationale above, blanking easily verifiable adaptations (calling them SEO vehicles?) at the main article. Cf. also The Bible in film, List of media adaptations of Journey to the West, List of media adaptations of the Investiture of the Gods etc. Changing it into a list may also be more preferable for the content under consideration. Gotitbro (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOPAGE. The article is too small for keeping it as a standalone article. Koshuri ^(あ!) 04:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: If we are concerned about redundancy with the "popular culture" section in the main article and the WP:NOPAGE guideline, then merging would be the right option, not deletion, though I am sympathetic to the concerns of it being undue and unnecessary bloat on the main article. With the sources presented by Gotitbro though, I think there is a clear demonstration of independent notability. As the WP:IPC essay states, "popular culture" sections and articles tend to be trivia and cruft magnets, without a clear scope. I think the article should be renamed to "List of media adaptations of the Ramayana", in line with two of the examples presented by Gotitbro, as it not only has clearer scope but also better represents the existing article. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOPAGE. We dont need more WP:POVFORKs in an area which is a magnet for POV pushing. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ramayana#In_popular_culture. The subject is notable, but deserves TNT, due to MOS:POPCULT violation. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fabric of Security

Fabric of Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was created as a mostly copyright violation text dump and has languished for 10 years as copyrighted material and POV have been removed. The term "Fabric of security" was not actually used by the only paper cited, and as near as I can tell it's not really a defined, coherent phrase in computer security, all search results I get on JSTOR and Google books are just incidental uses of the phrase in articles about other things.

An editor on the talk page proposed merging the content to Butler Lampson so there's one sentence that's cited and could be merged, I guess. As is my understanding of recent changes to AFD policy this nomination is the correct course of action rather than just doing a merge/redirect myself, sorry if I have it wrong. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Separately from the copyvio concerns and the recent changes in merge proposal procedure, it may be of note that this article has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since March 2016 (in an article created only that January). No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  It also is of note that the merge proposal on the talk page appears to be the contesting of a PROD (but was not the formal decline of it, which was done by someone else), so soft deletion won't be considered here in any event. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Richard Joseph

Richard Joseph (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 due to lack of significant independent coverage. The article relies on limited or weak sourcing and does not clearly establish notability beyond routine mentions. Also fails WP:BEFORE EditorTimes (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Games, and Computing. EditorTimes (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment musicians producing stuff for computer games don't get the sourcing they really deserve, but there is a little for Richard Joseph: . Can anyone find anything more? Elemimele (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  The GamesIndustry obituary confirms his career but does not provide significant in-depth coverage. Most available sources are database listings, credits, or routine mentions. This falls short of [[WP:GNG]] which requires substantial independent coverage, not just recognition within niche industry sources. EditorTimes (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - In addition GamesIndustry.biz, Eurogamer has an obituary: . Obituary and a short profile in Retro Gamer: , . Won a BAFTA for Theme Park World, BAFTA nomination for Cannon Fodder and two other soundtracks he produced were nominated for a BAFTA. Won the Best Sound award from The One (magazine): . Other Amiga composers cite him as an influence or best composer: , . The Guardian considers him one of "the greatest composers of the era" in an article covering a tribute concert that features some of his work: . Satisfies the criteria #3 in WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Mentioned as one of the main creative people in reviews/articles about the games, examples: , . --Mika1h (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominator has since been blocked indefinitely as a likely-compromised sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Artsyom Zakharaw

Artsyom Zakharaw (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 currently just a stub linked to database sources and I can't find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG in my Russian and Belarusian searches. I can find plenty about Artyom Zakharov, the Kazakh cyclist, but nothing about the Belarusian goalkeeper. This is not that surprising given that Zakharaw has played in just 1 professional match and that one appearance was just a one minute cameo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, a remnant of another time. Geschichte (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no references establishing notability per WP:NFOOTBALL.--Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - one minute of football isn't enough. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Shrine of (disambiguation)

Shrine of (disambiguation) (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)

"Shrine of" isn't specific to these two articles and there's no need to disambiguate between these two specific subjects. A list of shrines or a disambig page on the actual name of the shrine (if they were similar) would be more appropriate. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Pakistan. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Incomplete list please wait there are many subjects of Shrine of (disambiguation)Kashif123m (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment we already have List of shrines, why do we need a disambig? Elemimele (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

All shrines are included in the list of shrines, and only those named "Shrine of" will be included Shrine of disambig. Kashif123m (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are supposed to help readers who have only a partial match on what they're looking for. I can't think that there will be many readers for whom the word "of" is an important extra piece of information helping them to narrow the search. I am perhaps biased towards Christian shrines and Europe/UK, but at least in these circles almost all shrines are the shrine of something, so there's no great benefit in a disambig relative to the total shrines list. Also, if you type "Shrine of" in the search bar of any wikipedia page, it will do exactly what you're aiming to do with this disambig: list all articles with exactly that wording in the title. I'm afraid I do feel a disambig is misguided here. Elemimele (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Elemimele I agree with your opinion Kashif123m (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I hope you'll find useful ways to update shrine information. I did notice that our category of shrines seems very incomplete (but I don't know much about categories). Elemimele (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: no value in this short list of PTMs. The reader is better served by the link in Shrine (disambiguation) to "All pages with titles beginning with shrine". PamD 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - List of shrines exists. Disambig serves no purpose. Umais🗣 08:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  List of shrines is very incomplete from shrines of existing page Kashif123m (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete WP:PTMMrKeefeJohn (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ab Khel Ke Dikha

Ab Khel Ke Dikha (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)

Ab Khel Jamay Ga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Khel Deewano Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tayyar Hain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Groove Mera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Agay Dekh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sab Sitaray Humaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NSONG for standalone articles, should be merged to the respective season articles or the list (List of Pakistan Super League anthems). Vestrian24Bio 10:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Sports, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 10:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• @Vestrian24Bio: Thank you for highlighting the concern. I believe that the second one, "Ab Khel Jamay Ga", now complies WP:N due to it has WP:SIGCOV. For the others, please give me some time so I can rewrite/expand the articles. Thank you for also not bringing some other articles, which I assume you consider notable just like your review at "Khelenge Beat Pe". M. Billoo 02:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, once enough reception is added I will withdraw other nominations as well.. Vestrian24Bio 02:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: Meanwhile, I have discovered WP:SIGCOV for "Groove Mera", an article which may take a large time to be rewritten/expanded for now. Based on these, should I ask to strike that as well? Other than that, currently and apparently I am left with only one now, "Agay Dekh". I may ask an external help as well. Thank you! M. Billoo 22:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll withdraw my nomination now. Vestrian24Bio 11:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Katara station

Katara station (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)

Totally unsourced and likely fails WP:NTRAINSTATION Mariamnei (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2026-04 ✗ deleted ← 2026-04 ↻ restored ← 2026-04 ✗ G6

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Amazon locations

List of Amazon locations (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)

The prose parts of this article should be merged into the parent article Amazon (company), primarily into the § Operations section. The lists of locations are clear WP:NOTDIR violations and should be deleted. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – The Grid (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why delete? The parts that have been proposed for merging satisfy WP:NOTDIRECTORY. FaviFake (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  "The lists of locations are clear WP:NOTDIR violations and should be deleted." but I'll change it to support nomination – The Grid (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge/keep While the full list of offices and warehouses without context may not be the most encyclopedic, these should still be summarized based on the coverage received and there's still a good amount of prose here, so the content should be kept unless/until it's appropriately merged. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep it the list is useful for reference without wanting info on the company— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-86921-7 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The usefulness of a list or any other Wikipedia article is not considered a valid reason to keep a list or article that is in contravention of policies or guidelines (WP:NOTDIR is part of our policy of what Wikipedia is not). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd think the article would be a bit too long if you'd merge them. It will bother readers, and it would be better off as its own article. Dohgfrty (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect - Both of these articles are over 100 kB, so they definitely should not be merged. Redirect without deletion is OK too. I also have no objection to keeping the article the way that it is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Aamer Mirza

Aamer Mirza (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 => only trivial coverage in sports database listings and match statistics => lacking in notability per WP:SPORTSCRIT. It's cool that he participated in domestic first-class cricket, but I doubt that it's enough, on its own, to make him notable. Did a BEFORE but couldn't find anything to save this one. Maybe a redirect to 'Peshawar cricket team'? ScottyNolan (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and Pakistan. ScottyNolan (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; two citations are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Aamer Mahmood

Aamer Mahmood (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 => only trivial coverage in sports database listings and match statistics => lacking in notability per WP:SPORTSCRIT. It's cool that he participated in domestic first-class cricket, but I doubt that it's enough, on its own, to make him notable. Did a BEFORE but couldn't find anything to save this one. ScottyNolan (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and Pakistan. ScottyNolan (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• DELETE : Fails WP:GNG and does not meetWP:ATHLETE and WP:NCRIC. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; two citations are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2012 Reform Party presidential primaries

2012 Reform Party presidential primaries (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)

Longstanding redirect should be restored. I have tried restoring it and have been reverted. The current version is unsourced and it likely fails WP:GNG. Mariamnei (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect Nothing to say, really, no sources about it. Reywas92^Talk 13:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Third-party and independent candidates for the 2012 United States presidential election, where I believe it is most relevantly mentioned. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect. Really all of these should be redirected from 2024 to 2008 (2004 probably should too but seems like there is more sourcing there). Esolo5002 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect As per everyone else due to lack of sourcing to justify a separate article. Whilst this isn't a reason for the decision, I will note that the redirects were all from a prolific sockmaster. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Dr. Edwin Rivera Cruz

Dr. Edwin Rivera Cruz (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)

Appears to fail WP:NPROF Mariamnei (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Puerto Rico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The article, as it stands, reads like a junior CV, and I agree that as written it does not pass WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to Rivera-Cruz. I think this article is a sadly-misguided student product, and I feel bad towards its creator, but it's so far off the mark of a typical biographical article on an academic that it needs a complete start-from-scratch re-write. Rivera-Cruz is only an associate professor, but has a pretty respectable publication list; he's outside my field so I'm not assessing whether his publications are enough. It might be too soon, but I don't think his notability should be judged by the current article. Elemimele (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  sorry, he's Cruz-Rivera in Google, I should pay more attention to titles. Elemimele (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to Edwin Cruz-Rivera. Everything said already is correct. It is a hopelessly amateurish article, and "it needs a complete start-from-scratch re-write". Athel cb (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - too soon as an associate professor to pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Trank

Trank (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 appears to be a table of prime numbers, not clear why it needs its own article. It is also completely unsourced. Mariamnei (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - until about an hour ago, this page was a redirect to Josh Trank Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, the redirect isn't necessary because anyone who wants to find Josh Trank will manage fine without it; this article apparently began as a completely unsourced article about a short-lived computer art group, and it never grew any sourcing. Instead it went through a set of unhelpful edits and vandalism some of which should have been rev-delled, and frankly it's hard to see the current situation as redeemable. If the art group was ever notable, someone can start from scratch. Elemimele (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, in agreement with the above. This page serves no encyclopedic purpose, the redirect makes no sense as "trank" is slang for tranquilizer. I also wonder about the art group list which is also dubious IMHO.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Ignoring the history, and just considering the article as it is now, it is completely pointless. Listing the prime numbers up to 100 can be done in a single short sentence. No table is needed. Athel cb (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: For what it's worth, the first nomination in 2006 was for the art group, and ended as "keep" at a time of much lower standards. There is absolutely no reason why the current table should exist (it easily could have/should have been reverted), and it is clear there has been a whole bunch of what might fall under article hijacking in some form, but I'm refraining from a fuller opinion than that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Computing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete No salvageable history. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Strong delete as fundamentally unencyclopedic and completely unsourced. This is just unreverted disruptive editing. If not for this AfD, I would have restored the redirect and listed it at RfD. Delete instead of redirect per above. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 07:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for being both pointless (we already have List of prime numbers) and confusing (the title is completely unrelated to the content). I'd say that speedy deletion criterion A1 applies, since there is no way to tell what the "article" is supposed to be about. Also, A10 applies, since this just says part of what List of prime numbers already says, and the title is in no way a plausible redirect. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: This seems to be a WP:SNOW delete. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 03:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW delete and re-redirect to Josh Trank. This is just vandalism. Why are we wasting time with a full AfD on it? As for whether the redirect is necessary: the usual convention is that if we have one person with a surname, we have a redirect from the surname to that article; if we have more than one, we have a surname article. Here we have one person, so we should provide a redirect. Redirects are cheap, and it might help people looking for the surname Trank (rather than for John specifically) as for instance I often do for the surname of a biography that I have created. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete, A1 //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 08:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2021 DR15

2021 DR15 (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:NASTRO. Unable to find any kind of coverage using Google or Google Scholar. The only sources in the article are from databases or about different objects without mentioning this one. I would support a redirect to the list of TNOs as well. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. If the planned Hubble observations yield any interesting results then that may change; but because the planned observations target literally all mid-sized TNOs without known moons, the fact that such observations are planned for this mid-sized TNO doesn't mean much. Renerpho (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect. This will stay a stub for a long time, so best to redirect for now. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to sound rude here but if it's not notable enough then why did you start the page? Homlos (Message me bro) 21:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  it's not a stub anymore guys, and in you said that it's a possible dwarf planet Homlos (Message me bro) 22:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also, it's a very bright object like it's literally might be brighter than Máni and even if assuming a bit higher albedo of 0.124 it's still bigger than 700 km, it's a very large object (possibly a dwarf planet), let's just wait if Hubble Space Telescope can't detect anything interesting then we'll delete it ok? I really want to keep it for now first. It's about as notable as 2010 RF43 which is not nominated for deletion Homlos (Message me bro) 23:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  @My planet is Homlos I might start AfDing more TNOs which fail NASTRO, which appears to be a substantial fraction of them. Physical properties aside from apparent magnitude are irrelevant to notability. If Hubble finds anything interesting a WP:DELREV can be conducted to bring the article back. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why do you want to make this a redirect then, you said they should burn in hell in your userpage, you're joking right, this'd be contradiction Homlos (Message me bro) 08:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I notice that you edited 2003 LA7 7 hours ago and didn't AfD it, 2003 LA7 has far less content, a much fainter absolute magnitude, and no Google scholar things, and def not a DP. I'm sorry if this sounds rude again but are you like targeting 2021 DR15? Homlos (Message me bro) 08:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  @My planet is Homlos No. I am waiting for this discussion to close so I can AfD the rest.

  In response to your previous comment, it is a joke. You shouldn't take everything on people's userpages so seriously. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry Homlos (Message me bro) 14:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

In a past AfD in 2010 VR11 @Nrco0e was saying that 2021 DR15 should be treated differently, I'm confused, is this contradiction ? Homlos (Message me bro) 22:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

My overall suggestion is keeping it for now, wait for the upcoming observations this year and if there's anything interesting observed like a moon then we'll keep it but if there's not anything interesting then we'll make it a redirect until it finally becomes notable enough and get sources in Google scholar focusing on it then we'll revive it, my opinion is keep it for now. Homlos (Message me bro) 11:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos: We've got to look at the situation now, not try to predict what might happen with it next year. The advantage of turning it into a redirect (as opposed to actually deleting it] is that the old version will still be accessible in the article history. Should the object turn out to be notable in the future, recreating the article will be simple and quick. Renerpho (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry guys maybe '''redirecting''' is the best option right now, (although it'd be hard to find info about it and kinda awkward for being brightest unmeasured size object but not have page) I'll add the whole content into fandom is that ok? Homlos (Message me bro) 23:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos: You can do with it whatever you want outside of Wikipedia if you respect the copyright of Wikipedia editors (see WP:REUSE for rules about reusing material from Wikipedia). I note though that there is nothing in the current article that can't be found by simply looking at, for instance, JPL's small body database. A link to the relevant databases will be in the table to where we intend to redirect it. That's why the object doesn't need its own article at the moment. Renerpho (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per nomination. There are no dedicated studies of the object, and all sources in the article are databases and lists. Artem.G (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What is the redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Spartaz: That would be List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects: 2021 in this case. Renerpho (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mohsen Kouhkan

Mohsen Kouhkan (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)

Created by user blocked for persistent addition of unsourced content, this topic does not meet WP:GNG, also confirmed by google search (not to be confused with Hossein Rajaei Rizi) WonderCanada (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WonderCanada (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not familiar with the sourcing in this article, but if it supports the claims currently in the article, then the subject meets WP:NPOL as a member of a national parliament. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any sources for this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NPOL. This and this say that he represented " Lanjan in the Iranian parliament". --SatnaamIN (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NPOL, which is demonstrated by the sources already present in the article. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep- also found an existing article List of Iran's parliament representatives (8th term) where the subject is already mentioned.Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jewish Defense League chapters

Jewish Defense League chapters (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)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List is a hodgepodge of direct links to Facebook and an outdated and no-longer maintained list of chapters. Coverage in WP:RS about the establishment of new chapters or their activity can be covered in the main Jewish Defense League page. Longhornsg (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, France, Germany, Canada, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jewish Defense League per nom. Article seems to be non-maintained and most sources are non-independent or trivial. Keeping an up-to-date list would be hard to do and would possibly violate WP:NOTDIR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jewish Defense League – The page does not establish independent notability for the topic as a standalone subject. The content largely consists of a directory-style listing of local chapters and brief mentions of activities already covered within the broader context of the Jewish Defense League. Herinalian (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Akhil Iyer

Akhil Iyer (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)

Possible conflict of interest and self-promotion. The article appears to have been created by a user who also uploaded the subject’s image and has made no further edits. This raises concerns about autobiographical or promotional editing (WP:COI + WP:AUTOBIO). Notability is also not clearly established with strong independent sources.EditorTimes (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. – NJD-DE (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominator has since been blocked indefinitely as a likely-compromised sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Phil Hornby

Phil Hornby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough sources, no evidence of lasting notability Likeanechointheforest (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, majority of the sources I found online were not independent of the subject.

Saenryl (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete- not finding enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Manipur Institute of Technology

Manipur Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Manipur. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manipur University#Affiliated colleges as an ATD-R. Page has OR information.BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per one, two by The Indian Express, three, four, five, six.

No indication of nominator's WP:BEFORE. @BhikhariInformer:, always consider a Scholar and Archive search before you vote for ATD. --SatnaamIN (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Though by Press Trust of India this also caters WP:SIGCOV. It was by the then President of India A. P. J. Abdul Kalam's ordinance. --SatnaamIN (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The NITs are notable Engineering and Technology institutes of India and they governed by the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education, and Research Act, 2007. We don't delete major institutes of any country because of nominator's vague argument. IDK, what's wrong with the nominator but they are trying to delete colleges with REDIRECT and the nominating REDIRECTED page. I don't see the nominator is here to build anything constructive. It's easy to nominate an article at AfD, but let the nominator to try to keep at least two. This is my civility. And I rest my case here with Keep with rational sourcings..--SatnaamIN (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  @SaTnamZIN I don't know why you are making this about me instead about the content. Firstly you got it factually wrong, this article is not an NIT. NIT manipur has a separate article at National Institute of Technology, Manipur

  The article by Indian Express you so proudly cited barely mentions Manipur Institute of Technology. They are about Manipur University. Talking about this, and it just mentions the college being opened and is regular routine announcement. Spend some time actually reading wikipedia guidelines, since in the past you were actively quoting essays as guidelines. Will also ensure time is not wasted in trying to explain guidelines.

  Lok Sabha debate mentioning a source does not constitute a secondary source or significant coverage either. So does the academia source... anyone can upload whatever they want to academia. I have done so myself.

  This academia source is a student paper for a college assignment uploaded to academia and it does not even go in depth about the concerned institute.

  This website does not even open, and from the website itself I can say that its a primary source, and is not independent of the subject.

  This again, in what way is it significant coverage? Mind explaining? It just reads like a directory listing of college with info on number of courses and the website. Such articles exist for every single college in india to help students find and search colleges easily. Its not even a news article, its a directory listing. First learn to differentiate journalistic sources from news.

  I also will not consider e-pao fully reliable as it contains a lot of self published work. Besides, The e-pao.net pieces are routine event coverage. The Lok Sabha source is an incidental name-drop.

  This is written by an administrator of the university, so again may I ask why you consider this independent?

  This again is no significant coverage but routine news reporting, every college in india has them. Wikipedia is not a news source that we will report every single event. It does not constitute Significant Coverage.

  The government PDF is an institutional self-report. None analyze the institute in depth. Quantity of weak sources does not substitute for one source with actual significant coverage. And there is not a single one source that actually offers significant coverage.

  @BhikhariInformer@Dz5t 8O12 Tagging you all so that you can verify the sources again yourself. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Not interested to explain you as you don't want to get convinced. Best of luck. SatnaamIN (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Sources found by SaTnamZIN are good enough to pass NSCHOOL and GNG. BhikhariInformer (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep:: It passes WP:NSCHOOL and has SIGCOV as updated by USER:SaTnamZIN. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: per WP:AFD1 I have updated the subject page with WP:THREE and WP:SIRS. WP:SIRS clearly says "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." and WP:SIGCOV says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Thus I have provided policy based SIGCOV by here and here. Mine provided sources are per per WP:THREE which are reliable. WP:SIGCOV doesn't say about numbers of sources, hence, more than one source are to be considered as WP:SIGCOV. The nominator is habitual of denying essays on notability and hammering, hence I must say the nomination is low effort without checking WP:BEFORE. --SatnaamIN (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I would suggest you to give policy based explanation on how your sources, instead of resorting to personal attacks. I and other users have been working on cleaning most articles especially relating to non notable institutions. I already explained how the above sources are clearly not significant coverage.

  Directories listing an institution and primary sources that are not independent cannot be treated as a reliable source Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Manipur College

Manipur College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Manipur. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manipur University#Affiliated colleges as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to its affliated Manipur University . Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to its affliated Manipur University Filmssssssssssss (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect- to its affiliated Manipur University , as an ATD, not finding SIGCOV Sources for now to suggest standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Don Bosco College, Maram

Don Bosco College, Maram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Manipur. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manipur University#Affiliated colleges as an ATD-R. Lots of sources, but all are ROUTINE and lack SIGCOV about the college itself. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, I think the broad amount of sources establishes notoriety, the "Imphal Free Press" articles have a good amount of information about the college itself. nahle.ghini (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manipur University#Affiliated colleges as an ATD-R. Most sources I could find online were ROUTINE
• Keep as since nomination a number of references have been added to the article from newspapers and other sources that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my opinion, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Chanambam Ibomcha College, Bishnupur

Chanambam Ibomcha College, Bishnupur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Manipur. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manipur University#Affiliated colleges as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manipur University#Affiliated colleges as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

State funeral of Qasem Soleimani

State funeral of Qasem Soleimani (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)