Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 24

2025 Iranian strikes

2025 Iranian strikes (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 or redirect to Military history of Iran. Otherwise, there will be 2024 Iranian strikes, 2026 Iranian strikes, and so on, unnecessarily for every year and all countries dropping strikes in multiple countries at any year. LIrala (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Technology, Aviation, Middle East, and Iran. LIrala (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This seems a totally sensible disambiguation page Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Nothing wrong in keeping this disambiguation. NavjotSR (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2025 in Iran where these are covered. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• [Disclosure: closer of the RfD that created this disambiguation] Keep (and create 2024, 2026, etc. too if and when suitable). 2025 in Iran is too broad for this topic, and contains no more relevant entries that what the current disambig has. Jay 💬 07:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. If someone searches for this, it's easier to find it here rather than browsing through 2025 in Iran. 12:23, 1 May 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.

21Shares

21Shares (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)

After the last AfD, this article was soft deleted, but it has now been restored. Please join me in ushering this crypto-spam out of the encyclopedia. I see no evidence of notability for this relatively new company, the references are all junk. Author blocked as a sock. MediaKyle (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and Companies. MediaKyle (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Found nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The founder Hany Rashwan does have a page. It is enough for now. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I note the concerns raised, and I agree with prior comments that the current sourcing could still be improved. As previously noted, the company’s reported early role in a physically backed crypto product may be relevant to notability, and additional recent coverage may help address the sourcing and notability concerns identified. If the page is considered premature for mainspace at this stage, draftification would appear more proportionate than deletion. This WSJ article about its acquisition is a good example of its trackrecord in the industry: ~2026-16527-86 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Typical crypto scam. ~2026-25902-55 (talk) 01:10, 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.

Koojarra

Koojarra (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 a very bare article about a ship that is in no way near notable. Absolutely no reason to have this article.Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 22:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, nominating an article for deletion with seven cites two minutes after it was created is not good faith editing. Nominator has provided no reasons. Parlypensiv (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Parlypensiv I hadn't gotten a chance to add a reason yet. I have now added it. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 23:01, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 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.

Lucas Sánchez (footballer, born 1992)

Lucas Sánchez (footballer, born 1992) (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 database sources, hasn't played since 2012. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, couldn't find sources on him Saenryl (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - there are quite a few players with this name but I can't find anything decent. I thought that this might have been a source but the DOB didn't match. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – No significant coverage found about this person generally. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 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.

Smash It Like Belushi

Smash It Like Belushi (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 do not think this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Pretty much all coverage of this song is exclusively in announcements of its release or info about the deluxe edition this song is from. Every reliable source covering the song off of Google News that I can check gives a couple of sentences to the song at most, failing WP:SIGCOV. For example, the NME source that is cited in the article, only gives two sentences about it. "‘Smash It Like Belushi’ is a throwback to the band’s ‘Dookie’ era and explores themes of mental health and isolation", followed by quoting a few of the terms included in the song lyrics, is not significant coverage. The Consequence source, used to cite the genre (which fails WP:EXPLICITGENRE but I digress), says "It’s a strong cut for a track that didn’t make the original album, with hook-laden vocals from Billie Joe Armstrong and a mid-tempo, power-pop bounce" and that's it. Every other source I can find is in this exact same boat, if not even less detailed.

The songs charts are also insignificant, only going on two sub-charts at relatively insignificant positions. Though, charts don't make something automatically notable anyways. There's also a weird controversy this song was involved with in seemingly a band rivalry, but it's not coverage of the song itself . This should be redirected to the album it was from, Saviors (album), per NSONG guidelines. λ NegativeMP1 21:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. λ NegativeMP1 21:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not bothered by the "all sources are just announcements", but if those announcements don't really say anything, and by extension, the article is extremely short in prose, then it's possible that it's better to just be covered in the album article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• I think a merge into the Saviors (album) would be a better option in this case, the song is a part of the album.Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect into Saviors (album). Gavetheman555 (talk) 00:45, 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.

City Group of Colleges, Lucknow

City Group of Colleges, Lucknow (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) 21:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly fails WP:NSCHOOL.SamBordoloi (talk) 10:24, 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.

RLSY College, Nalanda

RLSY College, Nalanda (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 Filmssssssssssss (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Bihar. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patliputra University#Colleges as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patliputra University#Colleges as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patliputra University#Colleges. RangersRus (talk) 12:51, 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.

Havana (singer)

Havana (singer) (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 no reliable secondary source available to verify this information. Endrabcwizart (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 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.

Democratic Forces for Progress

Democratic Forces for Progress (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 can't find any sources mentioning an alliance called "Democratic Forces for Progress" having existed in Burkina Faso in the 1990s. Searching the English name and French name for the alliance gave no relevant results. Fails WP:GNG

(Closest I could find is a party called Union of Democratic Forces for Progress in Mali, but that party still exists today, and is clearly not the political alliance this article is talking about. The person the article mentions, Issa Dominique Konate, seemed to be the vice president for the party People's Movement for Progress in Burkina Faso (according to this article: http://www.cubanews.acn.cu/cultura/9972-debuta-hoy-nueva-telenovela-cubana), but that is also clearly not what this article is about) ApexParagon (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Burkina Faso. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Note that this article–extant since 2006–has been tagged as unsourced since 2009, and the few attempts to add even one source have been challenged each time. A 2025 PROD attempt, which hinged near-entirely on the name being hard to even find sourcing for, was declined. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: clearly fails GNG. StartOkayStop (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly does not fail GNG. Take for example the following snippets: "Forces Democratiques pour le Progres ( FDP ) , with six deputies led by Issa Dominique Konate" (). Burkina Faso, les fondements politiques de la IVe République identifies Issa Dominque Konate as the leader of the FDP parliamentary group. From West Africa (1993) "The Democratic Forces for Progress ( FDP ) , under the leadership of Issa Dominique Konate , MP , is a parliamentary alliance of six deputies drawn from five left - wing parties : Movement for Socialist Democracy ( MDS ) , the former [...] FDP parliamentary group is not yet thinking of a merger . But with time , Issa Dominique Konate believes that all FDP's constituent parties and indeed all the 20 parties that supported Blaise Compaore's candidature for President might ...". From Jeune Afrique: "Assemblée du peuple. FDP ( 6 députés ) Issa Dominique KÓNATÉ L e groupe des Forces démocra- tiques de progrès ( FDP ) comprend , au sein de l'Assem- blée des députés du peuples , six membres ". From Africa Confidential: ..." ( FDP ) . These parties came to prominence after 1983 and have participated in government ever since . The FDP's parliamentary group of six deputies from five parties is led by Issa Dominique Konaté , 40 , the only MP from the Mouvement ..." --Soman (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - per the sources Soman found, this meets WP:GNG. This political alliance did exist, and it participated in the government of Burkina Faso. (EDIT: I added some citations to the article & removed the "Missing citations" banner. I keep the "May not meet notability" banner, as notability is still being discussed in this AfD nom) Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 04:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Question for those with access to the books: Is the description of the Democratic Forces for Progress in-depth enough? If the FDP is mentioned as part of a list of alliances or in relation to Issa Dominique Konate every time, we may need more direct coverage to meet notability. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  The sources I added to the article (based on what Soman found) are definitely not what I would call "significant". Though admittedly, I can only view snippets of them. The West Africa journal source in particular seemed like there was more to it, but again I can only view the snippet that I quoted. Could this be a case of WP:NPOSSIBLE? Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 01:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If all we have are snippets I think we need better discussion of the text
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No discussion at all since relist. As Spartaz indicated above, this topic deserves a bit more discussion about what we might reasonably say about the topic given the snippet sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:57, 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.

A Personal Journey

A Personal Journey (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:NALBUM. I didn't find any reviews for the album by reliable sources. Don't have access to the book reference but even if it was significant coverage, it wouldn't be enough on its own. Redirect to Lord (band)#Studio albums? Mika1h (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Australia. Mika1h (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with this being deleted. The artist who recorded it is now in prison for child sexual abuse, so get rid of it for all I care. BrianFG (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RedShellMomentum 19:29, 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.

George Acosta

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

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

Subject appears to fail WP:SPORTCRIT due to a lack of independent and non-trivial sources about the player. The only non-trivial source I could find was this from the Miami Herald, but even searching for Spanish sources I could not find any more to support notability. It was also unclear whether or not he played for Cortuluá or Internacional Palmira, but whichever team he played for he appears to have made only a single appearance. Raskuly 🐰 19:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Colombia, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas. Raskuly 🐰 19:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Austin American Statesman, El Nuevo Herald, 7 News Miami, Diario AS, Sun-Sentinel. --Jahaza (talk) 21:10, 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.

Sameer Ahmed Khan

Sameer Ahmed Khan (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)

As the CSD was removed, I had to nominate it for deletion. The article is based on trivial mentions and interviews. Non notable subject with some non notable awards. Fails WP:GNG. Clear COI and the article is also promotional. Rht bd (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Technology, and Pakistan. Rht bd (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This article reads like a résumé. Aneirinn (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, but we are NOTLINKEDIN. Rht bd (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO does not show significant independent coverage. Most sources are interviews, routine startup coverage, or passing mentions, and the listed awards do not appear to establish notability. Umais🗣 05:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 10:08, 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.

Greenville, Sullivan County, Indiana

Greenville, Sullivan County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. This place seems to be nothing more than a post. I've gone through topos and old aerials, and it seems to be nothing more than 4 sparse houses here. Not a noteworthy community by any means. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. This locale is notable only on a very local level. TH1980 (talk) 01:33, 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.

Homotopy type theory

Homotopy type theory (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 articles Homotopy type theory and Univalent foundations largely overlap and are basically about the same subject. For example, both talk about the history of the subject, about applications to formalization, and about the problem of finding a constructive interpretation of univalence. I think it's quite clear that they should be merged.

A more delicate question is which name to retain. In my experience, quite a few researchers in the field tend to use “univalent foundations” for the use of univalent type theory as a general-purpose foundation of mathematics, and reserve “homotopy type theory” for its special-purpose use for developing homotopy theory synthetically. On the other hand, it is clear that the term “homotopy type theory” has “caught on” way more outside of this narrow circle.

My personal preference would be to merge into “Univalent foundations”, which I consider to be the more accurate term, but still redirect “Homotopy type theory” to “Univalent foundations” since that's probably what most people typing “homotopy type theory” in the search box are actually looking for. If an article about actual homotopy theory was created, it could just be called “Synthetic homotopy theory”. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep separate, no merge. Homotopy type theory is a general class of theories, within which univalence is a common but by no means universal assumption. It is like you are asking to merge Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with axiom of choice: they often go together but they are far from the same thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  What are you referring to? In my so far 8 months as a PhD student in type theory, I have never heard anyone call “homotopy type theory” something without univalence. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  A search for "homotopy type theory" "without univalence" —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I checked the first 10 results of that search and none of them supports this claim (they are talking about how something would be impossible without univalence, etc.). I maintain that there is no substantial use of “homotopy type theory” for a type theory without univalence. Furthermore, this terminology would seem completely strange to me given how univalence is the key ingredient that introduces non-trivial homotopy-theoretic content into a type theory. While it is true that the most basic definitions like h-levels and the scheme of higher inductive types make sense without univalence, everything would be trivialized in a traditional UIP setting. I mean, where is the homotopy theory if you cannot even show that the fundamental group of the circle is ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} }$ and it might actually be that the circle is equivalent to a point? Jean Abou Samra (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per authoritative David Eppstein. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge into Univalent foundations. "Homotopy type theory" refers to Martin-Löf intensional type theory extended with the univalence axiom; see e.g. nLab. The seminal book on the topic has the title "Homotopy Type Theory" and the subtitle "Univalent Foundations of Mathematics". The main conference on the topic is called "Homotopy Type Theory / Univalent Foundations". Even conceding that the term can refer to Martin-Löf intensional type theory without the univalence axiom (which is in my experience untrue and certainly not corroborated by the linked Google Scholar search), the pages would have enough overlap to merge as explained by Jean.

  Regarding "authoritative", let me point out that, first, Jean and I are researchers in type theory while David Eppstein is not, and, second, quoting WP:AFD4,

  Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors.

  — ncfavier 20:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I certainly agree that my opinion should not be considered authoritative in any way. As you say, I am not a researcher in type theory. However, I would point out that the nlab page you links to discusses univalence both for Martin-Löf type theory and for cubical type theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep both articles but merge some content of HoTT into Univalent foundations. Merging both would be akin to merging "ZFC" with "set theory", and the book deserves a page of its own, where the context of its writing could be explained. Its page must also be used to present "book HoTT" (the homotopy type theory presented in this book specifically, ie. Martin-Löf type theory + univalence axiom + higher-inductive types), and maybe some interesting theorems of the book, like the computation of the homotopy groups of the sphere. But I think that most of the "history" section of HoTT should go into "Univalent foundations". However, if they should be merged, I would advocate for the title "Homotopy type theory", event if it is the not the name chosen by the people who worked on it first: I think that it is the most widespread name, even among mathematicians and computer scientists: a google scholar search for both terms returns more results for "homotopy type theory" (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Homotopy+type+theory%22&btnG= : 4340) than for "univalent foundations" (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Univalent+foundations%22&btnG= : 2970). JeanCASPAR (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Ncfavier and @JeanCASPAR, you have a good point — I didn't think about the fact that besides (1) anything related to univalent foundations and (2) synthetic homotopy theory in univalent foundations, some people use “homotopy type theory” to mean (3) book HoTT specifically, as opposed to another univalent type theory like cubical.

  Apart from the terminological question, there's a real question about the content: do we want to introduce book HoTT separately from univalent foundations in general? I'm starting to think @JeanCASPAR is right and while “Homotopy type theory” should have most of its existing content merged into “Univalent foundations”, this page should be repurposed (rather than deleted) for a more technical exposition of book HoTT. But I'm not sure whether it would be easy to present univalent foundations in general agnostically of how the type theory is made univalent.

  Perhaps the best for now is to do the content merge and leave “Homotopy type theory” as a stub with a few sentences explaining that book HoTT is a univalent foundation consisting of MLTT + univalence + HITs and that there is a terminological confusion around it. We can expand later. What do you think? Jean Abou Samra (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. JeanCASPAR (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge into Univalent foundations as that's the more general term. This is nothing like ZFC and Set Theory, as there are many other notable forms of set theory, some of which even predate ZFC.

If there's a significant amount of notable non-HoTT Univalent foundations, then seperate articles would make sense, but HoTT should still be summarised in the main Univalent article. — Isaac Oscar 06:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Cubical type theories are notable non-HoTT Univalent foundations, and they also deserve their own article. And we can still summarise HoTT in the main article if we keep several articles. JeanCASPAR (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep From the Shulman reference in the lede it is pretty clear that at least in principle HoTT can be used beyond/besides univalent foundations. There is also a section in the article explaining that in some detail.jraimbau (talk) 07:38, 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.

2025 DCI Season

2025 DCI Season (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)

Drum Corps International does not receive enough media coverage to support overviews of each season. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Music-related AfD discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Why? I Ask. It was a nice idea, but the media coverage just isn't there. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, there are no sources for this. Santa Saana (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. Plus it lacks WP:GNG ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 22:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, fond as I am of drum and bugle corps. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Retro music11 (talk) 13:37, 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.

Blue Line (Meerut Metro)

Blue Line (Meerut Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a bit of a mess. This page appears to be largely regurgitated from Meerut Metro which itself is suspected of being partly or largely written by LLM. There are some weird things on this page which suggest LLM usage including the referencing code - it appears that the "retrieved" date on some of the references are before the publishing dates, both of which are years before the page creation in 2026. Either someone has copied the information from somewhere else or an LLM has been doing some hallucinating. For any of the above reasons, I suggest the page should be deleted. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, fixable, WP:NEXIST. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning delete. The article at least needs to be WP:TNT'd for reasons given in the nomination. To push back on Hyperbolick's reasoning: It's not clear to me that the line has a separate notability apart from its parent system at the moment. Most sources seem to refer to "Meerut Metro" or "Meerut Metro Line" or "Meerut Metro line". The line is shown as "Meerut Metro" on the passenger information display system aboard RRTS trains on a video I just watched, while the official map calls it "Meerut-MRTS Line", MRTS being a synonym for metro. There's some evidence of "Line 1" or "Line-1". There's not much at all for "Blue Line" – pretty much all "results" are false positives referring to the Blue Line in Delhi or other Indian cities. Astro.furball (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: In additional searches, the evidence found is mostly about "Meerut Metro"/"Meerut Metro Line" and a few hits around "Line 1", just as Astro.furball mentioned. I could barely find any results about a "Blue Line" w.r.t Meerut Metro. The ones which show up, are false positives about the Blue Line of Delhi Metro. I didn't get why has someone even created this article....As the nom mentioned, it's only regurgitating the information from Meerut Metro under a different title and that makes no sense. With poor coverage in existence, I am also against any type of redirect or merge outcome. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• G15 speedy The temporal issues (claiming to have retrieved a source before the publish date) make the article G15 eligible. Jumpytoo Talk 08:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 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.

Kirungi Annet Pamela

Kirungi Annet Pamela (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)

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Kirungi Annet Pamela § merge request

 – FaviFake (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge request

This article has a duplicate article Pamela Annet Kirungi B722N (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy merge; as a duplicate this really should have been done boldly rather the coming here. Klbrain (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect I don't think there is anything to merge. --Enos733 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect duplicate. PamD 06:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect - same person, almost identical information. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 1 May 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.

Yuma station (Southern Pacific Railroad)

Yuma station (Southern Pacific Railroad) (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)

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Yuma station § Merge proposal

 – FaviFake (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Yuma station (Southern Pacific Railroad) into Yuma station. I think the content in Yuma station (Southern Pacific Railroad) can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. MJ (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support: better to have the history all in one place. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support: this makes much more sense than deletion. Mgburnside (talk) 1 May 2026
  • @Mgburnside: So you're aware: AfD is the venue for both merge and deletion discussions (see the note at the top of this page). No one is suggesting deletion, only a merge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Pi.1415926535:Thanks for the clarification. I'm definitely still learning. Mgburnside (talk) 1 May 2026

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.

History of FC Basel (1918–1939)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Given this was already not contentious and everyone is in agreement to a merge, I am proceeding. The Voivodeship King (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

---

History of FC Basel (1918–1939) (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)

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:History of FC Basel (1893–1918) § Merge proposal

 – FaviFake (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge into History of FC Basel (1893–1918)

It's been noted already that there is no reason to have five pages for the club's history. I've spent the past few days putting 1918-1939 through significant copyediting and it's now a third of the size it was. Proposing on merging with this page (that still needs copyediting) with a view to further merges depending on how the length ends up. The Voivodeship King (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I support this—ideally with the goal of ultimately having only one History of FC Basel article, as suggested by Toffeenix in this talk page message. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC); edited —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom, articles are now manageable lengths. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to History of FC Basel, do not need separate articles. GiantSnowman 19:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

OutThink

OutThink (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)

As the CSD has been removed by a TA, I have nominated the article for AfD. The article is based on Churnalism, promotional sources and routine fundraising coverage. No indication of notability and a clear promotion and COI. Fails WP:GNG. Rht bd (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete no indication of notability, all sources WP:ROTM coverage, WP:PROMO tone. Orange sticker (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 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.

Agustina Jacobi

Agustina Jacobi (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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. The article relies entirely on primary sources, such as university websites and the subjects personal portfolio, providing zero independent secondary coverage. The awards listed are student level academic prizes from the individuals alma mater which do not establish professional notability in the field of art direction. In its current state the page functions as a resume rather than an encyclopedic entry and fails to demonstrate any significant impact on the industry. Xoonkowa (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arts, Argentina, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom reason which is well detailed. Santa Saana (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as per above discussion. She has fewer followers on Instagram than I do. Bearian (talk) 11:24, 1 May 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.

Shmohawk

Shmohawk (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)

Nonnotable slur; fails WP:GNG. --Altenmann >talk 03:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: This has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2023. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Disability, and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The second reference appears to be fictitious. I cannot find an article called "English Schmenglish" in the Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, or in any other conference by this group. Dr. Elaine Gold is a real person, and she may have written about this topic, but not with this name. The Curb Your Enthusiasm link doesn't work anymore. I can't even understand what this word is supposed to mean. SenshiSun (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Edit: Colosal reading failure on my part! The paper does exist. It's right here at number 9: https://cla-acl.ca/actes/actes-2002-proceedings.html SenshiSun (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Article's sourcing is rather questionable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:38, 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.

Aggrey Bagiire

Aggrey Bagiire (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)

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Henry Bagiire § Merge Request

 – FaviFake (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article should be merged with Henry Bagiire that has more information. B722N (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Are these the same person? --Enos733 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, they are the same person, it is name just that he has three names B722N (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge the same person. In 2024, Henry Aggrey Bagiire was an MP from Mayuge, the same source also said that he was a minister of agriculture from 2009 to 2011, which we ascribe to Henry Bagiire. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per Kelob2678. FaviFake (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: No opposition to a merge. Bearian (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Bearian Is that supposed to be a fact (nobody has opposed this) or your own !vote? FaviFake (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm just speaking for myself. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 1 May 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.

Hurghada Environmental Protection and Conservation Association

Hurghada Environmental Protection and Conservation Association (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)

Written from only a single non-WP:IS source. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Egypt. UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: This has been tagged as a potential NORG failure since March 2012–the article was created that month. (That the creator was HEPCA Red Sea (talk · contribs) cannot exactly be overlooked, either.) No specific opinion, but it would not take 14 years for a deletion (or draftification) to be considered for a new article like this today (but the only move in that direction was a declined G11 nomination that instead led to the notability tag). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 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.

John E. King and Homer D. King

John E. King and Homer D. King (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)

Normally I'd be bold and merge this article into the Hemet News and convert it into a redirect, and I've partly done so. I am requesting that this article be deleted because I don't think there should be an article on two separate people. John and Homer are father and son who owned a small town newspaper in California. Neither are notable enough to warrant their own article, and anything of note has been added to the Hemet News page. Eric Schucht (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hemet News: even if not the most likely search term, even a partial merge probably suggests the retention of at least a redirect as an alternative to deletion even if they don't warrant even a combined article for lack of separate notability from the paper. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, California, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Montana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested and is reasonable. For the record, father-son articles are rare and sometimes problematic, but they do exist. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 1 May 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.

BLP College, Masaurhi

BLP College, Masaurhi (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) 13:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Bihar. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patliputra University#Affiliated colleges as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patliputra University#Affiliated colleges. RangersRus (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect the college exists, but it doesn't prove the college is famous or notable enough for a standalone article given lack of sources. Redirecting to Patliputra University#Affiliated college is a good compromise Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 13:14, 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.

Our Time Is Up

Our Time Is Up (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 very poor as it has no sources and very little information. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Withdrawn as this article has undergone expansion with new sources hence why it should not be deleted.

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: It looks like this was on the final ballot for an Academy Award. Normally nominations don't count towards notability because the vast majority of award wins aren't notable enough to pass NFILM on that basis alone. So if a win can't keep an article on that alone, then a nomination surely won't. But this one is different, as Oscars are considered to be the most major film award something can be nominated for in the United States. The guidelines at NFILM actually considers a national film award at this level to be major enough to pass guidelines on that alone. Basically, it's the type of nomination that is so difficult and rare to receive that a nomination is just as good as a win, at least when it comes to notability. That said, we do need to find sourcing to back up the claims of it being nominated. I'll see what I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I've found some reviews for the film. Most of them are reviewing all of the Oscar shorts for the year at once, but the reviews are at length. They're not as lengthy as I'd like, admittedly. What really cinches this is the Academy Award nomination. As stated above, this is the type of award where even being on the final ballot is a huge feat. Not just anyone can get on that list. I'm still looking for sourcing, as I haven't hit up the books yet to see what they have to say. I've fleshed out the article greatly, particularly as the director made the short available on YouTube. That was a huge help with the plot and cast section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I also found this mention but I can't see the full book to verify the length. It looks like it received some type of review from Hollywood Reporter, but I can't verify the length. I added it to the reception section but for AfD considerations, I'm not counting that towards notability. Cunard, are you able to find anything else? I think notability is established, but more is always good. I also recommend viewing the short. There are some things that are a bit dated by today's standards, but it's a fun short. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for significantly improving the article and the ping, ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs)! You've found the best sources and added them to the article. I've found some additional sources that are mostly about the Oscar nomination and Pia Clemente being "the first Filipino American to have been nominated for an Oscar award" (The Filipino Express 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFThe_Filipino_Express2006 (help)) and "the first Filipino-American woman Oscar nominee" (Nepales 2006b harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNepales2006b (help)). Cunard (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. The sources found by ReaderofthePack.
  2. "Pinay screenwriter loses Oscars bid". The Filipino Express. 2006-03-13. p. 32. ProQuest 212473395.

     The article notes: "Filipina filmmaker Pia Clemente did not win an Oscar for her short film during the 78th Motion Picture Academy Awards. Her film, "Our Time Is Up", which she co-wrote with Rob Pearlstein, lost out to "Six Shooter" fron England. But she still gained the distinction of being the first Filipino American to have been nominated for an Oscar award and to have walked the movie industry award's red carpet walk. Clemente was accompanied by her parents Larry and Isabelita Clemente and brothers Joey (an Atlanta Braves marketing manager) and Mark (a college tennis champion). Clemente wore a champagne colored gown done by two designers -- Manila-based Rajo Laurel (a nephew of Cocoy Laurel) and LA-based David Tupaz (whose clients include Hollywood celebrities like Mariel Hemingway). Clemente's preparation for the awards night was documented by several TV people and a professional photographer."

  3. Articles in the Philippine Daily Inquirer about the Oscar nomination:
     1. Nepales, Ruben V. (2006-02-04). "A whole 'New World' for Q'Orianka Kilcher". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva aiwphi0020060204e2240002t.

        The article notes: "It must have been quite a morning for Pia Clemente last Tuesday when she and her collaborator, Rob Pearlstein, were nominated in Oscar's Best Live Action Short Film category for "Our Time Is Up." We're still trying to confirm this but Pia is possibly the first Filipino-American to receive an Oscar nomination. She is the co-producer of "Our Time Is Up" with Rob listed as writer and director. The short's synopsis goes: "Therapist Dr. Leonard Stern has always treated his patients gently and sympathetically-until he discovers he has six weeks to live. With time running out and nothing to lose, he adopts a fresh method of treatment: brutal honesty." Two critics who have seen the film have been quoted as writing the following comments. Eric Campos of Film Threat: "Four Stars. Very funny ... it's a blast ... a top-notch short." S. Mark Rhodes, of Films in Review: "'Our Time Is Up' was the most enjoyable short of the [Hamptons] festival, a nice 14-minute burst of perfect characterization, timing and humanity about a psychologist who realizes late (but not too late) what life is all about." Also in the cast of the short is Jorge Garcia, who stars in the award-winning hit TV series, "Lost." Our congratulations to Pia and Rob!"

     2. Nepales, Ruben V. (2006-02-17). "Filipina joins Oscar bets' lunch". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva aiwphi0020060216e22h00001.

        The article notes: "“With George Clooney, Joaquin Phoenix and Matt Dillon just a few feet away, I felt I was about to have too much dessert,” gushed Pia Clemente, the first Filipino-American woman Oscar nominee, when we asked her about the menu at last Monday's annual Academy Awards nominees luncheon. Pia, as producer, and Rob Pearlstein, as director -- both nominated in the Best Live Action Short Film category for “Our Time Is Up” -- and more than 100 fellow nominees showed up the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills for the traditional gathering of Oscar contenders. Hosting this luncheon (for the 25th time this year), the Academy encourages a relaxed, informal atmosphere. ... Pia replied via e-mail to my questions about her power lunch. At the end of her e-mail, she wrote: “The first [story about her nomination] came out [on the day of] our town fiesta in Sta. Maria [Bulacan, her home province]! You helped make my family back home so proud! Thank you for that.” Hmm, will Sta. Maria declare March 5 as Oscar Day in honor of this daughter?"

     3. Cruz, Marinel R. (2006-02-18). "Rajo Laurel-David Tupaz gown goes to the Oscars". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva aiwphi0020060217e22i0002u.

        The article notes: "When film producer Pia Clemente, the first Filipino-American woman to receive an Oscar nomination, walks on the Oscar's red carpet next month, she will be wearing a Filipino-designed gown. Clemente, as well as writer-director Rob Pearlstein, have been nominated in the Best Short Film, Live Action category for their work on "Our Time is Up," a comedy featuring Kevin Pollack. Clemente has chosen local designer Rajo Laurel and a Los Angeles-based Filipino-American David Tupaz, to design the gown she will wear at the Academy Awards. The Oscar's red carpet has become the biggest fashion show on earth. Presenters and nominees to the Oscars have access to the world's best designers, jewelry and a team of makeup artists and stylists-usually for free-because of the enormous publicity the event generates. "The winner is Filipino fashion," Clemente told the Inquirer. She will pick her Oscar gown from the creations of Laurel and Tupaz. The two talents, who are friends, set aside competition to collaborate on two gowns. Both are said to be excited about the chance to work together. ... "Our Time Is Up" is a film about a therapist (Pollack) who learns that he has six weeks to live and adopts a fresh approach to his method of treatment—brutal honesty."

  4. "Now Playing; Oscar-nominated shorts in U.K. cinemas". The Wall Street Journal Europe. 2006-03-03. p. W6. ProQuest 308615942.

     The article notes: "Our Time Is Up. Directed by Rob Pearlstein and Pia Clemente. After being told he only has six weeks to live, a therapist becomes brutally honest with his patients. This U.S. film won best comedy at the 2005 Aspen Shortfest."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Our Time Is Up to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:34, 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.

The Unity of the Realm

The Unity of the Realm (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)

Note:

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related AfD discussions. CosdonH (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

According to the tag in both linked articles, this a nomination for merge, not delete. Thincat (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure—did I format something incorrectly? I followed WP:M1. However, there is almost no additional information in The Unity of the Realm that is not already present in the main article. CosdonH (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:M1 just links to WP:AFD2, which says: If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, such as merge or redirect, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. I've fixed the nomination for you. FaviFake (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think you made a mistake. The system is in a state of collapse at present, but it might recover (or be returned to a satisfactory condition).

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greenland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Danish Realm. I am not sure whether the newly created page has any well-sourced information that should be added to the target. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Restore redirect, this is the same topic. For reference, the Danish Realm page itself used to be titled "Rigsfællesskabet". CMD (talk) 05:31, 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.

PFF National Men's U-23 Championship

PFF National Men's U-23 Championship (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. Scoria (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Football, and Philippines. Scoria (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: The article has one generally reliable source, but it may not be in-depth coverage. This is also the only source for the article. BSH (talk) - (they/them) 11:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment you have not given much of a rationale, what WP:BEFORE was done? Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I did WP:DILIGENCE. Scoria (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom. No good refs found in Google News and Google News Archives search --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 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.

Stefan Müller (footballer, born 1990)

Stefan Müller (footballer, born 1990) (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)

Müller made one appearance in the 2. Bundesliga, two appearances in the 3. Liga and over 200 appearances in the semi-professional Regionalliga.

I found

• one WP:SIGCOV-level article: ,
• three short pieces of coverage: , , .

For me, that's not enough to pass WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: One in-depth source does not feel like enough for GNG. BSH (talk) - (they/them) 11:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

One source is significant coverage as mentioned by nominator, but yes, still not enough to meet GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator's analysis. This is a common name in German-speaking countries, so a specific coverage is generally difficult to find. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 11:13, 1 May 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.

Sticker Mule

Sticker Mule (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)

Was previously deleted twice due to notability and per discussion All sources are talking about the CEO (Anthony Constantino) Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Most of the sources are marginally reliable, and most of them are about the CEO, or the controversy with the trump sign. BSH (talk) - (they/them) 11:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Very weak WP:PROSELINE article that barely talks about its services and products. Needs major improvement. Nathannah • 📮 16:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete & Comment: And since now the article "Sticker Mule" has been deleted. I think this page needs to be salted also because it was deleted 3 times, and it lacks some significant coverage per WP:SIGNIF. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 18:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete but wait it is already deleted? ~2026-25902-55 (talk) 01:12, 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.

Cristiano Teixeira

Cristiano Teixeira (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)

A web search didn't find anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. The subject seems to have played at lower league levels. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Couldn't find many non-trivial sources. One of them states that the club he played for (Figueirense) ended his contract in 2009, and it seems he hasn't been heard of since. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 14:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; a few external links are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 11:12, 1 May 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.

Jeremiah Thoronka

Jeremiah Thoronka (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)

Although the article is an WP:REFBOMB, most of the sources are of the same news of his awards on student prize. Some of them are passing mention or inclusion in a list of other people. No independent notability outside the student award. Previously deleted. The article is also WP:PROMO. Rht bd (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, Africa, and Sierra Leone. Rht bd (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has already been deleted once, and the subject of the article does not seem notable enough to me. I think this might be a case of "if the wikipedia article was better, they would be more notable", but as is stands, the article is two (2) sentences long, and is WP:REFBOMB (with 25 citations!) and WP:PROMO. -CRR- | talk 11:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E: a classic case of getting into the news for one thing. Bearian (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Winning a student-level prize does not make you notable. 🄻🄰 11:30, 1 May 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.

Giuseppe Albertini

Giuseppe Albertini (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 page was created by a paid editor, as evidence has already been shared. After being notified to disclose this, the user removed the COI and other templates without providing a reason. The subject may be notable, but the creator used improper methods to publish the page. It should have been submitted through the official Wikipedia process, AfC (Articles for Creation). Therefore, the page should be deleted until the user properly discloses their paid editing. Dolfinvest (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Dolfinvest (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominator is now themselves indefinitely blocked at the moment, albeit only for a promotional username. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NPOL as a member of parliament, probably can be speedily kept for a lack of a valid deletion rationale. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  The page Giuseppe Albertini and ENCON Equipment both was created in return of payment as the person from Dubai was hired for these jobs. I have send the email privately. She still not disclosed properly. The editor isn't from Canada, she is from UAE, Dubai. Please see the email I sent. If you need further details, you can let me know I can share further details. Dannypopmnm (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)

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.

Champions of the Galaxy

Champions of the Galaxy (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)

Despite the un-deletion request, there doesn't appear to be WP:SIGCOV about the topic. If other notable figures were involved in this, we could probably add a mention to their pages, but lacking any sigcov it's hard to see how this isn't advertising of some kind. (I'm happy to be proven wrong, but...) Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Games-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Remains completely unsourced with no indication of coverage. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems you might need to take another look, Zackmann08. Silverseren^C 20:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Silver seren: yes changes can happen after I make a statement... My comments were 4 days ago... That being said, I maintain that there is not WP:SIGCOV per the nomination. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Well then, you'll have to make some sort of policy based argument to back up that claim, since your prior one about sourcing is no longer the case. Silverseren^C 02:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Wrestling, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I've fixed up a few of the sources in the reference list with proper links. Other than that, they seem to showcase notability quite clearly, even for a niche game like this, with multiple full pieces about the card game, its history, and its mechanics. Silverseren^C 02:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• keep sources in the article now look to put the topic above the bar. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 29 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.

Agustín Mazzola

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

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

He played 10 minutes of football then seemingly disappeared. None of the 3 provided sources demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as both of the El Eco sources are trivial mentions in a local paper. I found another passing mention in El Eco and TyC Sports, which is a brief story about him testing positive for COVID, which isn't enough to justify a biography article on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NSPORT not established with the single mentions in the sources in article and could not find more sources. Santa Saana (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, overwhelmingly far below the notability bar. Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Hasn't played since 2019. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:23, 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.

Cristian García (Colombian footballer)

Cristian García (Colombian footballer) (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 can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The Win Sports doesn't seem to work properly for me and Soccerway is just a database. My own WP:BEFORE search, which included his full name and "Cristian García" in conjunction with his former club, yielded only Soccerpunter and Football Database, both database sources of questionable reliability. All sources seem to claim that his career didn't extend beyond one single cameo for Atlético Huila. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, unfathomably far below the notability bar. Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - One substitute appearance. That's it. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; two citations are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 10:56, 1 May 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.

Wakie

Wakie (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)

A suspected case of WP:PROMO? Their sources, such as BBC, do not meet WP:SIGCOV. The Boston Globe article is suspected promotional piece. I would like to appeal to the broader community for your opinion. I didn't find any more coverage other than presented in existing sources. MitYehor (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep There are articles from The Guardian and from The Sydney Morning Herald. The page also contains a review from The National. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep there are multiple in-depth app reviews as linked by Kelob2678. It easily meets WP:NPRODUCT. Additional coverage , , . ~2026-26397-83 (talk) 23:41, 30 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.

Port Chalmers Maritime Museum

Port Chalmers Maritime Museum (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 do not believe there is enough reliable independent sourcing about the museum specifically for a stand alone article. The article can be merged to Port Chalmers Post Office which houses the museum. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There is no reason whatsoever why the two articles cannot continue as stand-alone articles. The Post Office building is only part of the museum complex, and is the South Island's foremost maritime museum. Suspiciously close to being a POINTy nomination, too, given that Traumnovelle nominated this article for merging into a newer article on the Post Office, the result of which was not to merge - a discussion which was only closed yesterday. Grutness...wha? 03:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The museum isn't independently notable. AfD is now the main venue for merge discussions following a recent RfC. The result of the discussion was there was no consensus, because no one besides yourself responded to the proposal. Taking it to AfD is entirely appropriate and I'd prefer you withdraw your aspersion and focus on demonstrating standalone notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  My aspersion is because opening an afd within two days of the closing of a merge proposal by going one step further and asking for deletion is more than slightly suspicious an also extremely hasty. And I stand by that. Grutness...wha? 13:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge I'm someone who is all for keeping whichever articles we can keep and don't often agree with Traumnovelle, but I must agree in this instance. The only appropriate source that we have for WP:GNG for this one is Otago Daily Times since the NZ Heritage source only talks about the post office.

I've had a hard look at what other sources are available and unfortunately can't find any more that have more than a passing mention.

I know that this will be disappointing for @Grutness but I'm really sorry to say that, no matter hard I look, I can't find sufficient justification to keep this article. I would, however, suggest that you be the one who does the merging @Grutness since, for a while now, I've had major concerns about the merging that Traumnovelle does because they usually only move across the content that they consider "worthwhile" which has sometimes resulted in entire articles being consolidated into just one or two sentences. Seeing as you appreciate the inherent value of the content, you should be the one using it to create a stronger combined article that talks about both the Post Office and Maritime Musuem. Maybe a redirect and/or an article title that includes both subjects would be appropriate. MangoMan11 (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Only four of the 12 references are from the museum's website, and only two are from the ODT. Even counting the one from the Star as ODT-related, and discounting the NZ Heritage one (which only mentions the post office because it was - to quote the reference, "Still in use as a Post Office"" at the time. The museum didn't move into the building until six years after it was written), that still leaves four other references. Are they all inappropriate? Grutness...wha? 14:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The references are not (mostly) inappropriate but do not really establish any notability. They are either pretty routine primary reporting on a current event (the Port Otago expansion) or do not provide much detail on the museum. When I was writing the article on the post office I struggled to find sources containing basic information. Neither of the two articles have the date the museum opened for example, which seems like a really common and basic thing to cover when you're providing secondary coverage of something.

  is just an advertisement and the AA and 1001 best things to see and do in New Zealand are just travel guides, not the kind of sources a Wikipedia article should be built from.\

  'The museum is notable for its collection of artefacts relating to early Antarctic exploration' is sourced to Dunedin, North and South Otago, which was published in 1989. The post office closed in 1988, so it seems unlikely, even if the museum took over quickly that it'd become notable quickly and then that information makes it into a book that quickly (given books are usually written months or years before they are published). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The museum was going long before 1988, but only moved into its current premises then. The items it had in its former premises it still has today. Hardly a case of making it into a book quickly. The AA article was written by the same author as one of the sources used for the post office, and is to the same standard. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  So it looks like you have added new sources since then (you should've just said so), which may change things

  Originally, it was just the the four non-independent sources from the museum itself, the Heritage NZ source which doesn't have WP:SIGCOV due to not talking about the museum at all (it doesn't matter if it's from before the museum was in the building - it doesn't establish notability for the musuem if it doesn't even mention the museum), the two references that are ODT and count as one source, and The Star

  I don't know much about The Star and had just assumed that it was functionally the same as ODT, since everything I could find pointed that way. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise and that it is a separate from ODT and also is reliable in its own right.

  In terms of the sources that you've added:

  - The NZ History one unfortunately doesn't have SIGCOV due to not even mentioning the museum

  - The AA Directions one could be appropriate. It's not one of the orthodox sources that I would inherently assume to be reliable, but it otherwise appears to have good coverage and be more than a puff piece (secondary, independent, and with SIGCOV). I know that Traumnovelle will dismiss it since they don't like any sources that don't align with their own very narrow interpretation of GNG, but if other editors agree that it is reliable I think we can count it as one for establishing notability

  - The two book sources meet the other requirements of being reliable, secondary, and independent. But I can't verify if they have SIGCOV of the musuem since I don't have the books. If you can convince us that there is enough specifically about the musuem in them to meet SIGCOV, then I'll count them as establishing notability MangoMan11 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies for not saying I'd added new references. I did that before I saw your comment and assumed that you had written it after I had added those. In the case of the 1001 things book, about 1/3 of a page is devoted directly to the museum. It is briefly mentioned that it is in a former post office, but most of the information relates to the museum collection . The item in D:N&SO is smaller, amounting to only a couple of paragraphs, but mentions the museum's notability for its "rare and unique items from Antarctic expeditions".

Noting that I refactored the AfD template with the new merging parameters and added the {{merge-from}} tag to the destination article per the rationale in the nom. @Traumnovelle if you want to revert that and use the deletion version of the template feel free to do that. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Given that a merge proposal only closed yesterday, I'd say the afd template is more appropriate. There was no consensus to merge. BTW, I realise I'm biased, having created the museum article, but given that the Post Office building is only part of the museum and has a section in the museum article, it would perhaps be more appropriate to reverse merge the post office article into the museum one, should merging be deemed appropriate. Grutness...wha? 14:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Grutness They refactored the template based on the nomination statement, and given the !votes here I'd say it was the right call. FaviFake (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Grutness has added some additional sources to the article which may sway the outcome of this AFD:

- Barratt-Boyes, M., "The Port Chalmers Maritime Museum renovation," AA Directions, Autumn 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2026.

- Janssen, P., (2006) 1001 best things to see and do in New Zealand. Auckland: Hodder Moa. p. 370. ISBN 978 1 86971 067 5

- Dann, C. and Peat, N. (1989) Dunedin, North and South Otago. Wellington: GP Books. p. 54. ISBN 0 477 01438 0

And it also needs to be determined whether the following source is separate from the Otago Daily Times and contributes to the notability independently of ODT:

- Harwood, B. "New museum displays ready for reopening," The Star, 1 October 2024. Retrieved 2 March 2025.

If another editor or two who hasn't already been involved in this discussion agrees that at least a couple of these sources are appropriate for GNG, then I am inclined to change my vote to 'keep.' The main thing would be determining whether the book sources have SIGCOV or not, so it would be helpful if anyone who has access to those books could take a look at that MangoMan11 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The full content of Janssen (2001) about the museum is: 'Jam-packed with fascinating objects, this great small museum feels more like an antique shop than a museum. No fancy lighting or interactive display for bored kids here. Strong on maritime history, the Painting Room has a huge canvas of nineteenth-century Port Chalmers, and there is a massive old diver’s suit, along with cannons from the perfectly named pirate ship The Don Juan which was built in 1857 and the remains of which are still visible at low tide at Deborah Bay. The stone building was originally the post office, opened in 1877.' Traumnovelle (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@MangoMan11: See my reply above. I will be adding more sources once I get the chance to visit the library. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge on the grounds of overlap and context. The existence of additional sources and meeting WP:GNG is irrelvant; the only question that we should be considering is whether reader will be best served by having the activities of the museum and the building in which it standands (the former post office) should be discussed in one place. My view is that the overlap is so significant, and the context so helpful, that a merge is warranted. Klbrain (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge – Per Klbrain, too much overlap. FaviFake (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:OVERLAP, the merged article better serves readers. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:10, 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.

Pico (programming language)

Pico (programming language) (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 general notability guideline. the only source cited in the article is primary, and as such does not contribute to notability. a preliminary search for sources turns up another primary source and the unrelated PICO-8. ltbdl (fox) 09:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. ltbdl (fox) 09:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

A check in scholar shows a possible second programming language called PiCo (note the capitalization.) SenshiSun (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, searched and found only primary sources related to the developer. Could not find scholarly review of the programming language to pass notability guidelines. Santa Saana (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. I searched and similarly found only passing mentions and primary sources. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not something I could find information on (other than primary sources, and grokipedia of course) — Isaac Oscar 06:28, 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.

Torshi

Torshi (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)

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Pickling § Pickled vegetables

 – FaviFake (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge Torshi into Pickling

Pickled vegetables redirects here, but the article Torshi exists. Torshi is simply pickled vegetables. Shouldn't the articles be merged? A main section would be "Pickled vegetables", with subsections according to regions.--Zoupan 13:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. FaviFake (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: 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 at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2018-05 move to → Draft:Move/Torshi

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that here a WP:SOFTMERGE closure is necessary, not a soft deletion. FaviFake (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sandstein Since the AfD process was changed recently, kindly see WP:SOFTMERGE. AfDs generally do not need to be relisted if nobody objects and the nom is proposing a merge. FaviFake (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Where is that documented? Sandstein 20:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sandstein At WP:SOFTMERGE. (This is just a notification in case you weren't aware of it.) FaviFake (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

According to this guideline, a soft merge may - not must - result from a discussion that receives minimal participation. Since we're at AfD now, I prefer to follow AfD practice to relist sparse discussion up to twice. Sandstein 10:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course! I never said or meant to say that this relisting was incorrect or misguided; I just thought you might want to know about this option in case you weren't aware of it, as it was added recently. FaviFake (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose soft merge. Should rather close as no consensus (unless there becomes consensus). Neutral on the topic as I am no pickle expert. Geschichte (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge – Per WP:MERGEDUP, these articles' scopes overlap too much. FaviFake (talk) 19:18, 1 May 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.

BAO Outdoor Film Nights

BAO Outdoor Film Nights (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)

May not meet WP:GNG KH-1 (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Botswana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, notability is not established by the sources in article and could not find sources out there to pass any notability guidelines. Santa Saana (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete this editor has a bunch of AI articles including this one. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:06, 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.

Jane Turpin

Jane Turpin (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)

Odd sort of article, being something between a character-coverage article and a series article. In its current state it is almost entirely unreferenced - there are a few external links, but one is the series illustrator's personal website and the other is the abstract notion of the publication of the books. Overall I would not consider this to be WP:SIGCOV and is largely WP:OR, especially the "Parallels to William Brown" section.

This could be stubbed and turned into a series article, but the entire sum of all of the verifiable information is present at Evadne Price#Jane Series. I suggest a redirect there as an WP:ATD. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep - A current lack of references to sources isn't an important concern. The important concern is whether you have reason to believe that no source for the claims exists or could be found, regardless of whether it's currently cited. I believe this same misunderstanding is an epidemic that is damaging wikipedia.

Similarly, a current lack of linked or cited Significant Coverage is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether we reasonably expect sources to exist somewhere for what is claimed, which we should...considering the subject is a bunch of books published by a mainstream publisher by a (more easily attested) notable author. Lack of good citations indicates a lack of digitized searchable records of Australian or London literary news discussion from the 1930's about authors who aren't widely known a century later, much more than it indicates that a subject isn't notable.

Similarly, lack of citations does not at all mean it's Original Research (which refers to wiki editors publishing their own thoughts on wikipedia). The list of similarities derives from the work itself, and the other work itself, which is akin to an inarguable synopsis perhaps combined with [calculation]. A [itself] can be a source for information about the colors, shapes, etc, that it contains.

Similarly, the fact that a non-independent person (the illustrator) is a main source is irrelevant to whether we can expect that some source exists for the same info, regardless of whether it's currently linked or cited or online.

Here's an example question: is there any reason to think that the "[the author] did not take kindly to accusations that Jane was a copy of William" thing is a made-up lie? Price aka Smith died in 1985 which is well in living memory.

Here's a link which is not just a blog but a paper presented at a university conference: https://greatwarfiction.wordpress.com/helen-zenna-smith-and-the-disguises-of-evadne-price/ If a person is uncomfortable citing an art work itself as the source of straightforward factual statements about the work itself and what it contains, then that person could source that paper instead for the "similarity to William" thing and probably other points I don't care to read further about. Also note that the existence of that paper gives implication for reasonable belief about other sources, e.g. from nearly a century ago and not online or digitized. The fact is is that published books are discussed in newspapers and academia and radio programs and magazines, etc. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I looked through newspaper archives, ProQuest, Gale, and JSTOR for sources. I did not find any significant coverage in reliable sources. If you believe you have found some that I have missed, you are welcome to list any. ScalarFactor (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

What about "A Girl’s Life in English Interwar Suburbia: Evadne Price’s Just Jane", which seems mostly focussed on the character? There are also a number of other hits at the Google Scholar search. Daranios (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the series itself is likely notable - apologies if that wasn't clear from the nom statement. ScalarFactor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but that was not my main issue. My point is that the cited paper and other sources do cover the character of Jane Turpin to a significant degree, not only the book series named after her. Another example would be The Modern Movement, Volume 10, p. 352. It is not overly long, but there is one paragraph which directly jumps into an analysis of "the heroine Jane Turpin", with literary comparison and all. Daranios (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe that would be generally best covered on a series article, yes. ScalarFactor (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Rename the article. If the topic is notable and the issue is the scope, just change it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and possibly refocus and rename. I believe there is enough coverage of the character to be notable in the Wikipdedia sense. The series is most likely even more notable, and it may make most sense to cover the character within the a series article. But we don't have that yet. The strategy should not be to first delete this article and then hope an article on the series springs up where the character can then be incorporated. Either the article on the character could be left and improved, independent of a series article. Or this article could be the basis for and reworked to be an article on the series which includes the characterization of the protagonist. But that would be an editorial process which does not need a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  There probably is sourcing enough for the character but IMO it is a bit ridiculous to have an article on a fictional character without having an article for the media it is from. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  A result of this being a WP:VOLUNTEER project with editors of different interests, I presume. So why not WP:JUSTFIXIT? Not having this article does not bring us closer to having an article on the series. If this article is not renamed right away, having a redirect Jane series until a full series article is created is likely helpful, which might point to Evadne Price#Jane Series, or probably better here. Daranios (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we refocus on what sourcing there is for this and how much of the content is OR? I assure the keep voters that the level of known sources is precisely the issue and if you can't source this you lose this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• I believe that almost everything currently in the article could be referenced to primary sources. I don't find the "Parallels to William Brown" section as it is now especially appropriate, but a number of secondary sources do note exactly this comparison. I have changed and referenced the example which especially drew negative attention as a start. So while I think there are issues, I don't see a large amount of false information which would warrant immediate deletion. With regard to the requested further comment on secondary sources: Children's Fiction 1900–1950 has an entry on Evadne Price of a bit more than a page, with half of it dedicated to the character of Jane Turpin. And the journal article "Evadne Price: An Assessment" has still more commentary on the character. So taking all the listed secondary sources together, it is no problem to write a full article on the character of Jane alone. Notability is established in my eyes, and I don't see any reason for deletion. Improvements both in content and scope of the article can all be made through normal editing by whoever is interested. Daranios (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the nominator is trying to make a distinction between the character and the series, but to my mind they're the same topic. pburka (talk) 01:49, 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.

Tatar Roma

Tatar Roma (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 basically a recreation of Domba Tatars (deleted), and suffers from the same flaws. It relies heavily on millet.ro, an ongoing project which hasn’t yet published any results; and no source clearly indicated this group even exists. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Bulgaria, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I am getting some results for the phrase "Tatar Roma", including a study on oral histories "ORAL HISTORY OF TATAR ROMA OF BULGARIA" by Hristo Kyuchukov and "The Ethno-cultural Belongingness of Kalderash, Rudars, Tatars, and Turks in Romania and

Bulgaria (1990-2012) by Marin Constantin. SenshiSun (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Constantin, at least, does not seem to use the phrase “Tatar Roma”: . I might add that this looks awfully like a content fork of Crimean Roma, Turkish Roma, Romani Turks, Tatars of Romania, Tatars in Bulgaria, Romani people in Bulgaria. The overlap between some of these groups is considerable. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Stop this Anti-Roma statement. There are enough sources showing this people. You're just talking nonsense.^{I would like to briefly acknowledge that this comment was uncivil and a breach of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy (WP:NPA). I regret that phrasing and will ensure my future contributions adhere strictly to WP:CIVIL and focus solely on policy-based arguments regarding content and sourcing. My apologies to the participants in this discussion. Zolgoyo (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)}

• Identity and Language of the Roma (Gypsies) in Central and Eastern Europe Marushiakova, Elena, and Veselin Popov. 2016. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Specifically https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-34839-5_3)
• Slavkova, Magdalena. 2007. *Evangelical Gypsies in Bulgaria/ Циганите евангелисти в България*. Sofia: Paradigma. (Specifically https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Magdalena-Slavkova/publication/338372431_Evangelical_Gypsies_in_Bulgaria_Ciganite_evangelisti_v_Blgaria/links/5e141df892851c8364b5e0ef/Evangelical-Gypsies-in-Bulgaria-)
• Еролова, Йелис; Магдалена Славкова (2013). Етничност, религия и миграции на циганите в България. София: Парадигма. ISBN 978-954-326-206-9.
• https://dspace.bcucluj.ro/handle/123456789/136231

Zolgoyo (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

And by the way, Constantin does use the phrase "Tata Roma" (p.21, 22). Zolgoyo (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ll overlook the WP:CIV breach, and just say that all of these are passing references to a barely acknowledged group of people that could easily be covered at, say, Turkish Roma without any great loss. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete recreation of deleted article. Sources 1, 3, 4 do not mention anything about a "Tatar Roma" group, only that the "Davulcu" are close to Tatar communities and speak their language. Source 5 talks about Roma in Crimea and Budjak and Tatars in Budjak, not about some sort of mixed group. On source 6 only the abstract is visible, talking about Tatar-speaking Roma. Source 7 talks about Roma assimilated into Tatars in Crimea and Budjak. In short, no source seems to talk about this assimilation of Roma into Tatars as having created a separate subgroup of its own, recognized as distinct and covered (hence WP:NOTABLE) by reliable sources.

It appears this is WP:OR from the author. Zolgoyo exhibits serious long-standing WP:COMPETENCE issues. Sources 1, 3 and 4 state that the Davulcu speak a Tatar identical to that spoken by the Tatar community in Dobruja. Nevertheless, this editor made a separate article for their purported language . There is not even consistency in the misrepresentation of sources into showing supposed topics that do not exist. Super Ψ Dro 23:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• comment There is a 1904 article " Contribution à l'étude anthropologique des Tsiganes dits tatars de Dobrodja" by Eugène Pittard, but pardon my French :-) I cannot deduce whether it s the same subject, although Abe Books translated the title as Contribution to the anthropological study of the so-called Tatar Roma of Dobrodja. --Altenmann >talk 00:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Addition: The arguments for deletion fundamentally misinterpret or disregard the substantial body of academic scholarship that directly identifies, discusses, and details the "Tatar Roma" as a distinct and notable ethnocultural group. The claims of lack of sources, original research (WP:OR), or content fork (WP:FORK) are demonstrably false when confronted with the evidence from multiple, independent, reliable academic publications. I. Undeniable Existence and Notability (WP:NOTABILITY & WP:VERIFIABILITY) The primary argument for deletion rests on the assertion that "no source clearly indicated this group even exists" as a distinct entity. This is directly and repeatedly refuted: Slavkova, Magdalena (2007). Evangelical Gypsies in Bulgaria / Циганите евангелисти в България. p. 20: "Та­тар­ски ци­га­ни в Бъл­га­рия жи­ве­ят глав­но в Бал­чик и Доб­рич (По­пов 2006: 311). Те се пред­ста­вят ка­то “та­та­ри”, въп­ре­ки че не се при­е­мат от та­тар­ска­та об­щност в ре­ги­о­на. По ду­ми на ин­фор­ма­то­ри от об­щнос­тта на та­тар­ски­те ци­га­ни, те се де­лят на ня­кол­ко ро­до-ви гру­пи [...] Окол­ни­те гру­пи ги на­зо­ва­ва­т „да­вул­джии” („ davul” – тъ­пан, ба­ра­бан, тур. ез.), [...]" Translation: Tatar Gypsies in Bulgaria live mainly in Balchik and Dobrich (Popov 2006: 311). They present themselves as “Tatars”, although they are not accepted by the Tatar community in the region. According to informants from the Tatar Gypsy community, they are divided into several clan groups [...] The surrounding groups call them “davuldzhii” (“davul” – drum in Turkish), [...] Direct Naming: This is a crystal-clear identification of "Та­тар­ски ци­га­ни" (Tatar Gypsies/Roma) as a group. It names their primary locations (Balchik and Dobrich). This single quote conclusively demonstrates that this group exists and is studied. Distinct Identity: It explicitly notes their self-identification as "Tatars" but critically states they "are not accepted by the Tatar community in the region." This establishes their distinct identity both from the broader Tatar population and from other Romani groups, fulfilling a key aspect of notability. Internal Structure: The mention of being "divided into several clan groups" further details their internal social structure, confirming they are a coherent community. Connection to Davuldzhii: The text directly links them to the name "да­вул­джии" (Davuldzhii/Davulcu), which is precisely what the deletion argument by Super Ψ Dro attempted to separate. This confirms that discussions about Davulcu are discussions about Tatar Roma, validating the inclusion of information from sources that use that term. Kyuchukov, Hristo (2018). "ORAL HISTORY OF TATAR ROMA OF BULGARIA." Explicit Title: An academic study titled "Oral History of Tatar Roma of Bulgaria" is the most direct evidence possible for the existence and scholarly focus on this specific group. The title itself renders the "no source clearly indicated this group even exists" argument moot. It signifies substantial, dedicated academic attention. Constantin, Marin (2014). "The Ethno-cultural Belongingness of Kalderash, Rudars, Tatars, and Turks in Romania and Bulgaria (1990-2012)." Specific Mentions: As I previously noted, Constantin explicitly uses the phrase "Tatar Roma" on pages 21 and 22, discussing their ethno-cultural belongingness within the context of other Romani and minority groups in the region. This is not a "passing reference" but a substantive discussion contributing to their established identity and presence. The claim that Constantin "does not seem to use the phrase" is factually incorrect and easily disproven by referring to the cited pages. Pittard, Eugène (1904). "Contribution à l'étude anthropologique des Tsiganes dits tatars de Dobrodja." Historical Notability: This century-old anthropological study specifically focuses on "Tsiganese called Tatars of Dobrodja" ("Tsiganes dits tatars"). This demonstrates that this group has been a subject of scholarly interest for over a century, providing deep historical notability and demonstrating sustained academic attention far beyond recent projects. The phrase "dits tatars" ("so-called Tatars") simply indicates how they were referred to, not that their existence as a distinct subject of study was in doubt. Marushiakova, Elena, and Veselin Popov (2016). Identity and Language of the Roma (Gypsies) in Central and Eastern Europe. Comprehensive Coverage and Historical Context: This highly influential work by leading scholars states: "In Bulgaria and Romania, the so-called Tatar Gypsies live in the respective regions of South and North Dobruja. Their ancestors settled in these lands during Ottoman times (mostly after the Crimean War, under the conditions of the Paris Treaty of 1856), [...]." Explicit Identification: Like Slavkova, this source explicitly identifies "the so-called Tatar Gypsies" and describes their geographic distribution across both Bulgaria and Romania. Historical Depth: The mention of their settlement during Ottoman times, specifically after the Crimean War, provides crucial historical context and demonstrates their long-standing presence, countering any notion of a newly invented or insignificant group. This historical detail underscores their established identity and distinct migration patterns. Addressing "So-Called": The use of "so-called" (similar to Pittard's "dits tatars") indicates how the group is known or referred to, not that their existence is questionable. It signifies scholarly recognition of their specific appellation and identity. II. Refutation of Original Research (WP:OR) and Synthesis (WP:SYNTH) The claim that "It appears this is WP:OR from the author" and that "no source seems to talk about this assimilation of Roma into Tatars as having created a separate subgroup of its own" is fundamentally incorrect. The direct quotes and explicit mentions from Slavkova, Kyuchukov, Constantin, and Pittard demonstrate that the existence of "Tatar Roma" as a distinct group, their self-identification, their relation to the name Davulcu, and their interactions with Tatar communities are already documented and discussed in academic literature. The article merely compiles and summarizes these established facts, adhering strictly to WP:V. It does not generate new conclusions or interpretations not found in the sources. Slavkova's passage precisely describes the formation of a distinct group by noting their self-identification despite non-acceptance from ethnic Tatars, indicating the sociological creation of a separate identity. This is not synthesis, but summarization of sociological findings. III. Not a Content Fork (WP:FORK) The argument that this is a "content fork" and information could "easily be covered at, say, Turkish Roma without any great loss" is baseless and undermines the specificity of academic research: Distinct Scholarly Focus: The existence of dedicated academic studies (Kyuchukov, Pittard) and specific mentions within broader works (Slavkova, Constantin) specifically on "Tatar Roma" demonstrates that scholars recognize them as a distinct enough group to warrant dedicated, separate examination. These sources focus on their unique ethno-linguistic characteristics, self-identification, and social position which cannot be adequately encompassed by generic articles like "Romani people in Bulgaria" or "Tatars of Romania." Loss of Specificity: Merging this information would inevitably dilute and obscure the precise details of their unique identity, history, and current situation as detailed by Slavkova (e.g., self-identification, non-acceptance by Tatars, Davulcu appellation, clan structure). Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect the significant coverage found in reliable sources; if sources treat a group as distinct, Wikipedia should too. IV. Rebuttal of Editor Competence Claims (WP:NPA) The comment regarding "serious long-standing WP:COMPETENCE issues" on my part is a personal attack and has no bearing on the notability of the subject or the validity of the sources presented. Such comments are uncivil and should be disregarded. My arguments are based on policy and verifiable facts from reliable sources. The specific misrepresentation of sources attributed to me regarding the Romani Tatar language article is also irrelevant to the notability of the "Tatar Roma" group, which is clearly attested by the cited scholarship. Based on the overwhelming evidence from numerous, independent, reliable academic sources — including directly relevant book chapters and studies spanning over a century — the "Tatar Roma" are a distinct and well-documented ethnocultural group with established notability. The claims for deletion are based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the available scholarship. To delete this page would be to ignore direct academic evidence and diminish the coverage of a recognized community. The article should be kept. Zolgoyo (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC) PS: Küçükdürüm, Ezginur & Akat, Abdullah (2020). "Dobruca Türk-Tatar müziği ve kültürel temsiliyeti / Dobruja Turkish-Tatar music and cultural representation." This academic paper on Dobruja Turkish-Tatar music explicitly states: "[...] gerçekleşen göçler sırasında Tatarlarla birlikte gelen Çingenelerin, [...] Tatarlar tarafından davulcu denmektedir [...]" Translation: "[...] the Gypsies who came with the Tatars during the migrations [...] are called davulcu by the Tatars [...]" Reinforces Migration and Origin: This source confirms the origin and migration alongside Tatars, aligning with Marushiakova & Popov's mention of post-Crimean War settlement. Confirms "Davulcu" as an Ethnonym/Occupation: It explicitly states that Tatars call these Tatar-speaking Romani "davulcu," directly reinforcing the Davuldžii connection and its occupational origin. This further dismantles arguments attempting to separate these terms. Zolgoyo (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

An AI response. Because the editor is not WP:COMPETENT enough to be able to argue based on Wikipedia policy, and likely is not knowledgeable on most of it. Increasingly I believe this editor should not be allowed to edit. Others have been cleaning after them for years. Super Ψ Dro 14:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Super Ψ Dro's latest comment, suggesting my response is "An AI response" and calling for me to "not be allowed to edit" due to alleged "WP:COMPETENCE issues," is entirely inappropriate, uncivil (WP:UNCIVIL), and a clear personal attack (WP:NPA). This kind of comment is disruptive to the deletion discussion, which should be focused on the merits of the article against Wikipedia's content policies, not on attacking editors. My detailed arguments, supported by specific academic sources and direct quotes, are a product of diligent research and careful application of Wikipedia policies, as is expected in an AfD discussion. To dismiss them as "AI-generated" is a thinly veiled attempt to discredit a policy-compliant argument without engaging with its substance. The depth and precision of the cited evidence, directly refuting the claims of a lack of sources or original research, speak for themselves. Zolgoyo (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Any AI response is, by definition, not policy-compliant. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• keep Direct quotes from reliable sources provided in this discussion confirm that the subject is notable. --Altenmann >talk 17:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment While AI-generated rants may be dismissed, the sources found, AI or not, are valid and confirm the notablitily of the subject. --Altenmann >talk 17:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some uninvolved commentary on the sources provided would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please. Can we also look more at whether this is a CFORK?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Turkish Roma#Non-Turkish Roma people. The first source in Google Scholar (also brought up above) says, recent estimate of Muslim Turkish Roma in Southern Dobroudzha (Silistra and Dobrich districts) is that of 30-35,000 people, with the further subdivision of a small Muslim Tatar Roma community in Balchik. Another source mentioned above says, The ‘Tatar Gypsies’ profess Islam and this connects them with other groups of ‘Turkish Gypsies. This group the article is about has Islam as its religion and speaks Turkish, so it is reasonable to cover them under the Turkish Roma page, even though they are technically not Turkish culturally. Sources usually describe the groups together, as demonstrated by the quotes above. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  bad idea - Tatar are Turkish, not non-Turkish. --Altenmann >talk 00:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Then redirect to Turkish Roma#Subgroups, where the Millet group is mentioned. Millet is the actual subject of the millet.ro project that is used as a reference in the article, the site also says, Davulcu [Tatar Roma] group is encountered as part of the Millet (in the sense of religious community). Kelob2678 (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  The "millet" system refers to religious communities, and the Davulcu (Tatar Roma) is encountered as part of a broader Millet religious community, this does not negate their distinct ethno-cultural identity and notability as "Tatar Roma." The "millet" system was an Ottoman administrative division based on religion, not necessarily a definition of ethnic or linguistic subgroups in the modern sense. The website (millet.ro) also makes a division as follow: Millet, Turkish Tinsmiths and Davulcu.Zolgoyo (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not about negating distinct ethno-cultural identities or anything of the sort. Discussions of Tatar Roma I saw in the sources always devote some space to Turkish Roma, so we also should cover the groups together. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  It would either require creating an entirely new, broad article specifically for "Millet" in this context (which itself would need to be distinct from the historical Ottoman millet system article or Turkish Roma article) – or create an unwieldy and potentially misleading subsection in "Turkish Roma" that would then also need to explain the "Millet" concept in depth (actually due to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, specially for Tatar Roma, it will need separate article). Because not all Turkish Roma are part of "Millet" and Tatar Roma are not Turkish Roma. Also, this means that this section (or article) will have two Turkish Roma groups (Millet and Turkish Tinsmiths) and the Tatar Roma. However it is better that the articles have a summary section that links to the more detailed "Tatar Roma" article. Zolgoyo (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  By the way, Kyuchukov stated that the name "millet" is actually the polite term for "Gypsy". Zolgoyo (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  About WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:CFORK

  1. Slavkova (2007, p. 20), "Tatar Gypsies live mainly in the regions of Balchik and Dobrich... They define themselves as Tatars although they are not accepted as part of the ‘real’ Tatar community... The neighbouring Gypsy groups call them Davuldžii..."

  1.1. This is not a "small Muslim Tatar Roma community" under "Muslim Turkish Roma", it's a group with a distinct self-identification and a specific, well-defined relationship with the Tatar community, explicitly called "Tatar Gypsies". Slavkova explicitly states they "define themselves as Tatars although they are not accepted as part of the ‘real’ Tatar community". This demonstrates an identity that is neither fully "Tatar" nor simply a subset of "Turkish Roma".

  2. Küçükdürüm & Akat (2020), "The Gypsies who came with other Tatars during migration... speak Tatar are called davulcu by the Tatars and are known for their musicianship".

  2.1. This provides specific historical origin, linguistic identity, and cultural notability. This is not a sub-group of "Turkish Roma".

  3. Kyuchukov (2018), "ORAL HISTORY OF TATAR ROMA OF BULGARIA."

  3.1. An entire academic study dedicated to the "Tatar Roma" directly prove their notability as a distinct subject of research. This cannot be covered as a mere sub-point in another article.

  4. Constantin (2014, pp. 21-22), Explicitly uses "Tatar Roma" in a comparative study of ethno-cultural belongingness.

  5. Marushiakova & Popov (2016), "In Bulgaria and Romania, the so-called Tatar Gypsies live in the respective regions of South and North Dobruja. Their ancestors settled in these lands during Ottoman times..."

  5.1. This confirms their distinct identity, specific historical migration, and geographic spread across both Bulgaria and Romania, clearly differentiating them from generic "Turkish Roma."

  6. Pittard (1904), "Contribution à l'étude anthropologique des Tsiganes ditstatars de Dobrodja".

  6.1. Demonstrates over a century of academic interest in "Tsiganes dits tatars" as a distinct group.

  The proposed redirect destination "Non-Turkish Roma people" is also an inaccurate classification, as Tatar culture is Turkic. The migration discussed by Küçükdürüm & Akat and Marushiakova & Popov are specific to this group and differentiate them from other "Turkish Roma" who may have different origins or histories. These details would be lost or diluted in a generic redirect.

  The "Tatar Roma" are not simply a "small Muslim Tatar Roma community" that can be subsumed under "Turkish Roma#Non-Turkish Roma people". They are a distinct ethnocultural group with a unique history, identity, and significant academic coverage that fully meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Redirecting this article would be a disservice to the scholarship and the subject. The article should be kept. Zolgoyo (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I cannot access Kyuchukov, but Pittard (1904) may be too old to be reliable (WP:AGEMATTERS). Basically, it is a paper that reports on anthropological measurements of 15 individuals who self-identified as "Tatar Gypsies". Kelob2678 (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  However, the title alone, "ORAL HISTORY OF TATAR ROMA OF BULGARIA," is direct dedicated academic study of "Tatar Roma" in a publication.

  The Pittard's source demonstrates historical academic interest and self-identification of this specific group.

  Crucially, even if Pittard were discounted for some reason, and even if Kyuchukov were inaccessible, the notability of "Tatar Roma" is overwhelmingly established by multiple other, highly contemporary, and easily accessible academic sources. Zolgoyo (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think thre are enough coverage without those two papers, Slavkova (2007) cited in the article 8 times dedicates roughly 200 words to the group, which is not that many. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Slavkova is from the Bulgarian Academy of Science, as well Popov and Erolova (she is even from the Muslim community). They have also other sources mentioning Tatar Roma. Specially Hristo Kyuchukov, although can't get access to the sources, he is a well known professor about Roma people. Küçükdürüm & Akat are from Istanbul University and did inform about the existence of Tatar Roma. Also Marin Constantin from Romanian Academy informs about Tatar Roma. These all are academic and reliable sources, even from three different regions, and are enough coverage. Zolgoyo (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Do those sources contain significant coverage of the group? Kelob2678 (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure! Slavkova talks about their role in the Tatar community and even counts groups of Tatar Roma. Küçükdürüm & Akat talk about their culture with music. Constantin also talks about the community of Tatar Roma. Hristo Kyuchukov specially talks even about their history. Zolgoyo (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  From what I see, Slavkova is the best source among them, but still only 200 words, which is borderline with respect to significant coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:56, 30 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.

Kate Bush (album)

Kate Bush (album) (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 proof of notability, all sources provided are either fansites or online stores Elephantranges (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Elephantranges (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Kate Bush- the artist's main article per WP:ATD. Santa Saana (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is there a reason you think the album is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main article? Elephantranges (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Merge without prejudice. There is commentary about the album in Godwin's The Illustrated Collector's Guide to Kate Bush and Ryback's Rock around the Bloc , which latter book says it was very popular in East Germany. It should therefore be discussed somewhere in this encyclopedia, even if it does not have a standalone article. There might be more coverage, but it is difficult to search because of the amount of background noise generated by search terms like Kate Bush, Amiga, 1984, Deutschland. For the avoidance of doubt, it should not be required to have a level of coverage that is not usual for East German records from that time. WP:NOTEWORTHY says that notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. James500 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good! Elephantranges (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

No contest: i know i'm the one who added this article but it was a few years ago now and i don't really care either way. i agree there's not many sources proving notability. Sammyrayy (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kate Bush discography#Compilation albums. If others think it warranted, a sentence or two could be added as a note to this list. Doesn't feel like there's much more than that to write. WidgetKid ^Converse 01:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per James500 and Widgetkid. A brief mention about this LP with 1 or 2 citations in the discography list is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 10:48, 1 May 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.

Death of Shah Ahmad Shafi

Death of Shah Ahmad Shafi (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 unnecessary. Created to glorify the subject by his disciples. The events described in this article can be included as a section in, Shah Ahmad Shafi. Rht bd (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Shah Ahmad Shafi, the main article which already has a section about their death. As stated by the nominator, this article contains a lot of unnecessary information largely from fans point of view. Santa Saana (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Shah Ahmad Shafi. Orientls (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Shah Ahmad Shafi Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 20:16, 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.

P. H. Barnes

P. H. Barnes (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 kept when it was nominated in 2016 because of what once was written in WP:NCRIC 1. has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level which is no longer present on the guideline now. They would not pass with the current guideline and the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. This individual only played in one match and the article is devoid of basic biographical information including their full name. Aneirinn (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know cricket, but List of Canadian first-class cricketers isn't very long. This indicates to me that this might be an important achievement in the sport. In any case, a redirect would be appropriate, if the article is not kept. I will add that I don't think these cricket AfDs are a productive use of our time at all, these articles are not hurting anything and you'll never clean them all up. MediaKyle (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Redirect: The reason that list page is so short is because Canada's first-class history consists of, I think, a joint Canada/US match in 1913, one match in 1951, and some matches in 1954 when they toured England, plus other random Canadian-born people representing other countries and the ICC Intercontinental Cup matches from the 21st century. I'm not a fan of AfDs either; when I've dealt with them, they use up too much of my energy. But I digress. Anyway, about the article: There's no article on the tour match (the Marylebone Cricket Club's tour of Canada in 1951) he appeared in, which is usually a bad sign for a one-line article. Personally, if that article existed, I'd redirect Barnes to that page. For now, it needs to direct to that list mentioned by Kyle. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:06, 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.

Midwest Christian College

Midwest Christian 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)