Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 February 9

Luigi dell'Olio

Luigi dell'Olio (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)

Notability not demonstrated. I could not find significant in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. JohnMizuki (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, based upon WP:NPROF, which it appears that the nom did not investigate with a full WP:BEFORE. His h-factor is 42 with 6K total cites in Google Scholar. From a manual search of his co-authors the work he does seems to be a medium to low citation area. (Transportation in GS is wide, so it is tricky.) I see no evidence of notable awards, and 14 PhD's to date looks fair for a younger prof. I mulled a weak delete based upon WP:TOOSOON, but decided to give him the benefit of my doubts; 42 is OK for a medium to low area. I could change my opinion based upon other reviews that come in.Ldm1954 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep, it appears that this is a professor who has made an impact outside their field based on their advising of regional transport authorities in two countries. jwtmsqeh (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - at least as anybody. Bearian (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Per User:Ldm1954
• Keep passes WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - has passing Google Scholar stats for WP:NACADEMIC.Mercedesnun (talk) 19:39, 14 February 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.

Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (2018)

Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was created in January 2024 by what appears to be a single-purpose account, based entirely on VK posts rather than any independent reliable sources. Attempts to find any independent sourcing went nowhere, with broad searches mostly bringing up sources about the original RCP(B), while specific searches including keywords (such as its founder) bringing up nothing at all. As it stands, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that this organisation exists outside of Russian social media, let alone any significant coverage of it. As this article does not appear to meet notability guidelines for organisations, I'm nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Social science, Russia, and Ukraine. Grnrchst (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. How is this distinct from Communist Party of the Russian Federation? Seems potentially a hoax. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's distinct because it has a different name, flag and adheres to a school of Marxist thought. That said, it may very well be a hoax since I can't find anything other than its Telegram and VK accounts. Charles Essie (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomnination. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 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.

Luan Muça

Luan Muça (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)

Article contains poorly sourced and potentially inaccurate biographical information about a living person. Sources are routine/local coverage and do not demonstrate significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Previous versions were deleted after AfD. Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Temmywrld (talk) 23:24, 9 February 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 February 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Additional comment: Most sources are routine/local mentions and do not provide significant independent coverage. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Deletion remains appropriate. ~2026-84625-5 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Which parts are "inaccurate"? Bearian (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Response: The concern is that the article relies heavily on routine business announcements and local media coverage that may not provide thorough fact-checking or independent verification. As this is a biography of a living person, even minor inaccuracies or unverified claims can be problematic under WP:BLP. The lack of strong independent secondary sources makes verification difficult. ~2026-10438-69 (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. The sources are limited and mostly routine coverage. Stanislavayh (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC) — Stanislavayh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete I've made an extensive web search. He has some small coverage in mostly unreliable media. He doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• I support deletion of this article.

The sources cited are mostly local and routine coverage and do not demonstrate significant independent coverage of Luan Muça.

As this is a biography of a living person, unsourced or poorly verified claims can be problematic under WP:BLP.

Therefore, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingrobert8 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC) — Kingrobert8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.

Gabriel Barbosa Semedo

Gabriel Barbosa Semedo (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)

Non-notable footballer, fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. This one was probably created by a new user who is unaware of the guidelines. Svartner (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't find any decent coverage in Portuguese sources or otherwise Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any strong sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The sourcing is poor and doesn't establish notability. Guz13 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 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.

Iryna Chuzhynova

Iryna Chuzhynova (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 didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about her. Redirect to Ukraine at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Cycling is an usual WP:ATD for Olympians. Svartner (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, Olympics, and Ukraine. Svartner (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as indicated by the nominator, and I wouldn't be adverse to a full delete given that Ukrainian Wiki has the same database source. Does not meet WP:SPORTSIGCOV. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ukraine at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Cycling. I also didn't find SIGCOV even using Ірина Чужинова. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect is ok. Bearian (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ukraine at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Cycling Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 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.

Dimitri Tito

Dimitri Tito (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 mid-grade Associate Professor with little research impact (H-index 4) and modest output (18 papers). Doesn't reach WP:NPROF; local prizes as a student or trainee aren't sufficient to establish notability. Klbrain (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cameroon, and West Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or Draftify. Horrible refbombing, I cannot see the wood for the trees. I tried a little cleanup, but gave up. There is some SIGCOV, but I cannot tell what is real and what is fluff. I do not see a pass for NPROF, not even close.Ldm1954 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I would suggest the use of WP:THREE if there are any editors previously involved with this page. Two pieces of toast (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I tried to find the best 3 sources specifically about Tito, but could find any. Therefore, I looked for top 3 publications with him as a first or last author. They're a single-author option piece that been cited 12 times (on Street Doctors), a first-author article on Sphingomonas paucimobilis with 7 citations here and a first-author paper on Schizoaffective Disorder with 4 citations (here). So, no coherent field, consistent with a junior doctor looking for a field to study in, all published in a light-touch journal (Cureus) that focusses on case reports, reviews, and small studies. This supports the case for deletion (insufficient impact). Klbrain (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - this has all the signs of an article that should have gone through AfC and would be unlikely to get through. Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC on a basic walk of this, so it's over to standard GNG - the cite bombing is intended to bamboozle, it is not the intent that subjects with this profile get a standalone article. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete, not enough impact to be a notable academic. jwtmsqeh (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per ChrysGalley. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I think his experiences traetinbg patients in a warzone are extremely interseting but unfortunately I can't find any decent sources to add to his page to boost notability. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 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.

Noor Azian Alias

Noor Azian Alias (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)

Despites her social media profiles and photos, I didn't find any content with WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Malaysia. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails in GNG due to the lack of SIGCOV in RS. Just a representation isn't enough to warrant a standalone article. Just a WP:COOKIE. BhikhariInformer (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Let me know if more sources are discovered. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 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.

Hossein Salehi Najafabadi

Hossein Salehi Najafabadi (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 credible claim of notability; doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Source on the page fail validation (insufficiently specific), and Scopus shows no output under this name. Klbrain (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete, cannot find their research online. jwtmsqeh (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. The three sources are not independent of the subject. There are zero hits in Google Scholar. I've seen colleagues who lost tenure with at least a few hits, including me. Bearian (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concerns regarding notability and sourcing. I suggest moving the article to draft space instead of deleting it. The subject may not currently meet notability guidelines due to lack of reliable independent sources, but the draft could be improved in the future if such sources become available. Moving to draft would preserve the content and allow further development.FeriTech (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 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.

Iryna Shpylyova

Iryna Shpylyova (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 didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about her Svartner (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Ukraine. Svartner (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - As of today, there is only one non notable source. Guz13 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 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.

Monica Ceccon

Monica Ceccon (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 didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about her. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, Italy, and Caribbean. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete While the stats websites indicate she had a fairly lengthy career, I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to indicate notability Giulio 15:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Not enough coverage here from reliable sources for a WP:GNG pass. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any decent secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 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.

Alliance of the Revolutionary Socialists

Alliance of the Revolutionary Socialists (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 has existed as a stub, in a more or less unchanged state, since it was first created in 2011. The article offers little information and is entirely cited to posts on the organisation's long-dead website. There's nothing to be found on a Google Scholar search for its English name, and searches for its Russian name appear to bring up false positives (referring to similarly named organisations from the revolutionary era). To say it doesn't meet notability criteria for organisations might be a bit much, as honestly, I'm not sure this organisation ever existed in material reality in the first place. As per all this, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Social science, and Russia. Grnrchst (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 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.

Russian Maoist Party

Russian Maoist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was created in 2007, and in the nearly two decades since, hasn't grown beyond a short uninformative stub. It is about what appears to be an incredibly fringe political party that hasn't amounted to anything substantial. The only source currently cited in the article is an archived post from the party's own (now dead) website. A cursory search on Google Scholar brings up scant sources, none of which give it significant coverage; one only mentions the party in a list of acknowledgements and another mentions it in passing (and both of them are PhD theses). A search for its Russian name likewise brought up nothing of substance, just passing mentions.

As this article does not appear to meet our notability guidelines for organisations, and short of any clear alternatives to deletion, I'm nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Social science, and Russia. Grnrchst (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of political parties in Russia, where it is listed. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of political parties in Russia Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 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.

Marvin J. Thacker

Marvin J. Thacker (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 dont see anything notable about him in the article. The fact that he was never physically wounded during World War II seems trivial. The sources mainly come from an interview with him and an obituary. The article was previously declined at AfC, but the creator published it anyway. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. The article is written as a WP:MEMORIAL. Of course we Americans thank Thacker for his service. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Intothatdarkness 23:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. This appears to be gleamed from a local newspaper story. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG, surprisingly for someone who apparently "invaded Germany four times." Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Pretty horribly written as well ("invaded Germany four times" doesn't make any sense historically). Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, this is just a bad article worthy of WP:TNT if it were notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I could see that if this had been written in 2006, instead of 2026, this would almost make sense. However, 20 years later, everybody knows that we have never published original research or anything close to it as synthesis. Bearian (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find enough secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Serving in WW2 does not make a person notable as approximately 16 Million Americans, and 80 Million people from the Allied Forced combined served in WW2, most of whom were just random civilians who paused their normal life, just to return to a normal life after the war.

Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This is one veteran of millions. Guz13 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 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.

Steal Her Man

Steal Her Man (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)

Failed WP:NSONG, lacks of WP:SIGCOV. This article from Forbes is the only one have a coverage for me ROY is WAR Talk! 20:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, Music, United States of America, and North America. ROY is WAR Talk! 20:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Not a hit, no radio airplay, and no album to redirect to as the group seems to still exist, but hasn't put out anything outside social media content for nine years. Nathannah • 📮 21:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taylor Girlz per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taylor Girlz – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taylor Girlz as a viable WP:ATD Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taylor Girlz Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 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.

Lithuanian Jewish Community

Lithuanian Jewish Community (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)

Redirect and merge if needed to Lithuanian Jews. Does not have independent WP:SIGCOV. (Nomination withdrawn) Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and Lithuania. ROY is WAR Talk! 20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: I haven't reviewd the mertis of deletion yet, but Lithuanian Jews is probably not a good redirect target because as that article is about the ethnic-cultural group and this article is actually about a specific organization called the "Lithuanian Jewish Community," not the Jewish community in Lithuania. --Lenny Marks (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a very weird AfD request, and points to a larger problem of deletionism in wikipedia. This is the main organization of the Jewish community in the country, and saying that there would be a notability issue leads to a dead end. The Jewish community in Lithuania is numerically small, for reasons of modern history the nominator ought to be aware of. But LŽB appears in a lot of book sources, evidently a prominent institutions. And Lithuanian Jews is obviously not a good redir target, as the identifyer 'Lithuanian' in that context doesn't refer to the modern nation-state of Lithuania and the great majority of Lithuanian Jews nowadays live outside of the Republic of Lithuania. --Soman (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Nominator withdrawn, I will withdraw my nomination upon further consideration and the comments offered by user:Soman. Also, thanks for updating the abbreviation on the article to LŽB. That is another improvement to the article. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Even if the proposal has been withdrawn, I want to show there is consensus to keep it. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:32, 10 February 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.

Gollbetty

Gollbetty (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)

Unsourced since 2007. Prod was removed by an account that hasn't edited since December. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Probably a keep. The article notes that they charted nationally on Oricon, which means they pass WP:NMUSIC #2. They seem to have had 7 charting singles and 5 charting albums, including several in the 20s. Two of the singles rankings can be confirmed here and two of the album rankings can be confirmed here. They also appear to meet WP:NMUSIC #5 with multiple albums released by Toy's Factory. Dekimasuよ! 01:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NMUSIC as Dekimasu argues. DCsansei (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn - After sources found by Dekimasu, I'm happy to withdraw the article deletion nomination, though the article definitely needs more sources. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 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.

Natun Bazzar

Natun Bazzar (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 stub unsourced since creation in 2015, over a decade ago. The topic seems to fail both verifiability and notability, and it was proposed for deletion last year, when a wp:Notability search suggested the article topic is not notable. It was contested by an editor who suggested redirect to Jadunathpur Union as an wp:ATD. Such a re-direct would be problematic for two reasons: The first is that there are wp:Verifiability concerns since no sources establish whether, where, and when the market even existed. The second is disambiguation, as the name translates to "New Market," a generic name for which there are multiple associated places; a redirect treating any search for New Market as referring to this particular market (if it even exists) would be inappropriate. Lenny Marks (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lenny Marks (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 20:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  The nom isn't calling for a speedy deletion. Under which WP:CSD do you propose to delete this? Owen× ☎ 23:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. That user has a long history of problematic prod removals, leaving crappy pages like this and making bad ATD suggestions and not doing them or any other improvements. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Natun Bazar (New Market) is, unsurprisingly, a very common name in Bangladesh. Searches return many hits, but none for a Natun Bazar of this description, so fails WP:GNG. There is no evidence that the market described is a populated place with legal recognition (as required by WP:GEOLAND). It is not listed in the census. The nominator's explanation of why a redirect would be inappropriate is compelling. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we think that this is an early close under WP:XFD#SNOW candidate? It's a pretty much unverifiable one-sentence article saying there may have been a market somewhere once. --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 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.

North Euboean Gulf

North Euboean Gulf (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)

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG. Even if sources are found, this is a part of the Gulf of Euboea and should probably be merged and/or redirected there per WP:PAGEDECIDE.4meter4 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect, same with South Euboean Gulf. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gulf of Euboea along with South Euboean Gulf per nom. --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, there is significant coverage in scientific literature of the two gulfs (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2011.06.008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2011.11.010, https://doi.org/10.4236/cweee.2019.84007), and they are clearly separate, divided by the very narrow Euripus Strait (38 m). Markussep ^Talk 10:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Gulf of Euboea should be redirected instead then if these are considered separate bodies. These pages are unnecessarily duplicative so we should describe the branches separately or together, not both. I see the Greek wiki only has articles on the branches. — Reywas92^Talk 15:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

    I would agree that some form of consolidation should take place. If they are demonstrably distinct water bodies then the overall gulf page should probably be turned into a disambiguation page listing the branches. Alternatively, there could be one gulf article with branch subsections. As it is, three separate (and largely duplicative) articles for the same body of water is unnecessary. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

    I agree that Gulf of Euboea should become a disambiguation page. Markussep ^Talk 16:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gulf of Euboea Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 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.

Lajja (TV series)

Lajja (TV series) (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. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE. Suggest deletion or redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Marathi#Former_broadcast DonaldD23 talk to me 13:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Marathi#Former_broadcast, then.--~2026-61368-8 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 18:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Marathi#Former_broadcast per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect then. If nominator have done WP:BEFORE, no point to do it again. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Marathi#Former_broadcast as a viable WP:ATD. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Marathi#Former_broadcast Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 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.

North Binyang Cave

North Binyang Cave (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)

Unsourced since 2004. Fails WP:GNG. Suggest a merge or redirect to Longmen Grottoes per WP:ATD / WP:PAGEDECIDE. 4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Thoughts on a bundle of this article + South Binyang Cave + Middle Binyang Cave (which have 0 & 1 source respectively)? Jumpytoo Talk 06:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I would support if there was sufficient verification, but right now sourcing seems to be an issue that would suggest all should be redirected. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. 龙门石窟 [Longmen Grottoes] (in Chinese). Vol. 2. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe. 1991. p. 179. ISBN 978-7-5010-0306-8. Retrieved 2026-02-14 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "(三)宾阳北洞宾阳北洞是北魏永平中,中尹腾奏为世宗皇帝营造的石窟,但未完工。今洞内可见的北魏遗迹有三:一、窟顶有大莲花藻井十身飞天(插图一九) ;二、北壁壁脚刻五身神王,南壁壁脚现存三身,另二身已毁,共为十神三、窟门北侧下部有北魏造像残记一段,宽 14 、高 9 厘米。文云: “长从人苏......贵令胡............等于此敬( ? ) ......苏玄德”。洞内南北两壁现存八个造像龛。从造像形制上观察,都是永徽至乾封年间(公元 650 ~ 668 年)所造。窟门通道北侧的一身立佛像,高约 2 米,风化严重,约是中宗、玄宗时造。该洞正壁一铺大像及前壁的浮雕天王,应是同一时期所作。我们试以宾阳南洞、宾阳北洞和潜溪寺的三组大像作比较,就会看到三者渐次演变的情况:一、主像面相由方圆[如宾阳南、北洞(插图七、二〇) ]到椭圆[如潜溪寺(插图二一) ]。佛的身躯由挺直(如宾阳南洞)而略显胸部(如宾阳北洞)到刻出线条的双乳(如潜溪寺)。"

     From Google Translate: "(III) Binyang North Cave Binyang North Cave is a grotto built by Zhongyin Teng during the Yongping era of the Northern Wei Dynasty for Emperor Shizong, but it was never completed. Three Northern Wei relics are visible in the cave today: 1. A large lotus-shaped ceiling with ten flying apsaras (Illustration 19); 2. Five divine kings carved at the base of the north wall, and three remaining at the base of the south wall, with the other two destroyed, totaling ten gods; 3. A fragment of a Northern Wei inscription, 14 cm wide and 9 cm high, on the lower part of the north side of the cave entrance. The inscription reads: “Chang Cong Ren Su…Gui Ling Hu…Equal to this respect (?)…Su Xuande.” Eight niches containing statues remain on the north and south walls of the cave. Judging from the style of the statues, they were all created between the Yonghui and Qianfeng eras (650-668 AD). A standing Buddha statue on the north side of the cave entrance passage, about 2 meters high, is severely weathered and is believed to have been created during the reigns of Emperor Zhongzong and Emperor Xuanzong. The large statue on the main wall of the cave and the relief of the Heavenly Kings on the front wall should have been made in the same period. If we compare the three groups of large statues in Binyang South Cave, Binyang North Cave, and Qianxi Temple, we can see the gradual evolution of the three: First, the face of the main statue changed from square to round [as in Binyang South and North Caves (Illustrations 7.20)] to oval [as in Qianxi Temple (Illustration 21)]. The body of the Buddha changed from upright (as in Binyang South Cave) to slightly showing the chest (as in Binyang North Cave) to having carved lines on the breasts (as in Qianxi Temple)."

  2. 中國考古集成 [Chinese Archaeological Compendium] (in Chinese). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House [zh]. 1999. p. 1439. ISBN 978-7-5348-1836-3. Retrieved 2026-02-14 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "关于宾阳北洞的营造年代,还是一个尚待进—步考证的问题。这里只能就一些现象作一点肤浅的分析。宾阳北洞的结构布局和宾阳南洞大体一致,略有不同。两洞都以阿弥陀为主佛、二弟子、二协侍菩萨。宾阳北洞主佛面相方圆,胸部明显隆起,线条较南洞流畅柔和,系圆刀刻法。佛座呈方形,比南洞佛座多三个托坛力士,其形象又与奉先寺卢舍那佛座上的托坛力士相像。在南洞力士的位置上,北洞雕刻的是二天王的浅线雕,其形体风格又和敬善寺的天王浮雕近似。五尊大像的背光,以及窟顶莲花宝盖和伎乐天人均非浮雕而系绘画(抑或当时工程未竟,绘画为后人所加)。洞中小龛若干,均无造像题记和纪年。从总的风格看,宾阳北洞的造像年代似乎应该比南洞要晚,但也不会比敬善寺更晚。"

     From Google Translate: "The construction date of the Binyang North Cave remains a question awaiting further investigation. Here, we can only offer a superficial analysis of some phenomena. The structural layout of the Binyang North Cave is largely consistent with that of the Binyang South Cave, with slight differences. Both caves feature Amitabha as the main Buddha, two disciples, and two attendant bodhisattvas. The main Buddha in the Binyang North Cave has a square face and a noticeably protruding chest, with smoother and softer lines than in the South Cave, carved using a round-knife technique. The Buddha's seat is square, with three more supporting figures than the South Cave's seat, and their images resemble those of the supporting figures on the Vairocana Buddha seat at Fengxian Temple. In the positions of the supporting figures in the South Cave, the North Cave features shallow line carvings of two Heavenly Kings, whose style is similar to the Heavenly King reliefs at Jingshan Temple. The halos behind the five large statues, as well as the lotus canopy and celestial musicians on the cave ceiling, are not reliefs but paintings (or perhaps the project was unfinished at the time, and the paintings were added later). There are several small niches in the cave, none of which have inscriptions or dates. Judging from the overall style, the statues in Binyang North Cave seem to be later than those in South Cave, but not later than those in Jingshan Temple."

  3. Wu, Xuede 邬学德 (2001). 河南古代建筑史 [(Henan Ancient Architecture History] (in Chinese). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House [zh]. p. 108. ISBN 978-7-5348-2078-6. Retrieved 2026-02-14 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "宾阳北洞建于永平年间(公元 508 ~ 512 年) ,进深 12.6 米,宽 10 米,高 10 米,穹窿顶,地面饰以莲花图案,造像为一佛、二弟子、二菩萨、二天王。本尊阿弥陀佛,高 7.55 米。洞口门槛两端为狮头门墩。宾阳南洞为同期工程,进深 11.80 米,宽 8.70 米,高 9.80 米。造像为一佛、二弟子、二菩萨,雕造年代说法不一,有说隋代、有说唐贞观十五年魏王李泰在原像基础上续成。三洞营造历时 24 年。"

     From Google Translate: "The Binyang North Cave was built during the Yongping era (508-512 AD). It is 12.6 meters deep, 10 meters wide, and 10 meters high, with a domed ceiling and lotus flower patterns on the floor. The statues depict one Buddha, two disciples, two Bodhisattvas, and two Heavenly Kings. The main statue, Amitabha Buddha, is 7.55 meters tall. The entrance threshold has lion-head door piers at both ends. The Binyang South Cave was built at the same time, 11.80 meters deep, 8.70 meters wide, and 9.80 meters high. It also contains one Buddha, two disciples, and two Bodhisattvas. The date of its creation is debated; some say it dates to the Sui Dynasty, while others say it was completed in the fifteenth year of the Zhenguan era of the Tang Dynasty by Prince Wei, Li Tai, based on the original statues. The construction of the three caves took 24 years."

  4. 佛教石窟考古概要 [Overview of Buddhist Grotto Archaeology] (in Chinese). Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe. 1993. p. 143. ISBN 978-7-5010-0658-8. Retrieved 2026-02-14 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "宾阳北洞上方一个小洞里凿一佛二弟子三像,结跏趺坐佛,右手上画 5 道线(放射状) , 5 道线之中分别刻出了飞天(天)、奔马(畜生)、俯鬼(恶鬼) ,合十者(人)和地狱。宾阳北洞这个像无题记,根据图像判断叫五道转轮王或叫卢舍那人中像,这是中原地区不多见的。此像的时代,根据窟形和造像风格是唐高宗前期。"

     From Google Translate: "In a small cave above the Binyang North Cave, a Buddha and two disciples are carved. The Buddha sits in the lotus position, with five radiating lines on his right hand. Within these lines are carved flying apsaras (heavenly beings), galloping horses (animals), demons (evil spirits), figures with hands clasped (humans), and figures from hell. This image in the Binyang North Cave has no inscription, but based on the image, it is identified as the Five-Path Wheel-Turning King or the Vairocana Buddha image, which is rare in the Central Plains region. Based on the cave shape and the style of the sculpture, this image dates to the early Tang Dynasty, during the reign of Emperor Gaozong."

  5. Tang, Yunyun 唐云云, ed. (2014-05-05). "龙门石窟"剪刀手"卖萌佛像走红 专家:属巧合(图)" [Longmen Grottoes "V-Sign" Cute Buddha Statue Goes Viral; Expert: It's Just a Coincidence (Photos)]. Orient Today [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2026-02-14. Retrieved 2026-02-14 – via China News Service.

     The article notes: "“剪刀手”佛像位于“宾阳三洞”中的宾阳北洞，高约10米，结跏趺坐，双手平分指天地。据导游介绍，宾阳三洞始凿于北魏，原名“灵岩寺”，明清后易名“宾阳洞”，分为宾阳南洞、宾阳中洞、宾阳北洞。资料记载，宾阳北洞始凿于北魏，完工于唐代初年，洞中布局与南洞大体一致。 记者注意到，由于几天来网络的快速传播，很多游客都知道龙门石窟有个卖萌的“剪刀手佛像”，因此游客来到宾阳北洞时驻足的时间明显要长一些，大家或拍照留念，或比划学习千余年前的“剪刀手”手势。导游在解说时，也总是借机幽默几句。"

     From Google Translate: "The "V-sign" Buddha statue is located in the Binyang North Cave, one of the "Binyang Three Caves." Standing approximately 10 meters tall, it sits in the lotus position with its hands outstretched, pointing towards heaven and earth. According to the tour guide, the Binyang Three Caves were first carved during the Northern Wei Dynasty and were originally named "Lingyan Temple." They were renamed "Binyang Caves" after the Ming and Qing Dynasties, and consist of the Binyang South Cave, Binyang Middle Cave, and Binyang North Cave. Historical records indicate that the Binyang North Cave was first carved during the Northern Wei Dynasty and completed in the early Tang Dynasty. Its layout is largely the same as the South Cave. The reporter noticed that due to the rapid spread of information online over the past few days, many tourists knew about the adorable "V-sign" Buddha statue at the Longmen Grottoes. Therefore, tourists lingered longer at the Binyang North Cave, taking photos or mimicking the "V-sign" gesture from over a thousand years ago. The tour guide also frequently made humorous remarks during the explanation."

  6. Wang, Dong (2020). Longmen's Stone Buddhas and Cultural Heritage. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 111–112, 153. ISBN 978-1-5381-4111-3. Retrieved 2026-02-14 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: Chavannes erred due to his overreliance on the stone inscriptions on site when referring to the Binyang trio cave chapels. The construction of the three Binyang Caves (North, Central, and South) all began in the Northern Wei dynasty (386-534); ... the Central and South Binyang Caves started in 500 and the North Binyang Cave was added between 508 and 511. Only the Central Binyang Cave was, for the most part, completed in 520 during the Northern Wei; the other two caves were unfinished. The North Binyang Cave chapel was largely constructed between 650 and 683 during the Tang dynasty, whereas renewed work on the South Binyang Cave was conducted probably between 616 and 673; the main figures and niches were completed then."

  7. Boulanger, Robert (1989). Les Guides Bleus: China. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 531. ISBN 978-0-13-132713-9. Retrieved 2026-02-14 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "North Binyang Cave. Facing as if to 'welcome the sun' (Binyang), this cave was dug out under the Northern Wei, but its sculptures date from the Tang period, about 640–650. Note at the entrance two celestial guardians, then at the back a great statue of the Buddha seated, 25½ft (7.55m) high, between two arhat and two bodhisattvas."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow North Binyang Cave (simplified Chinese: 宾阳北洞; traditional Chinese: 賓陽北洞; pinyin: Bīnyáng Běi Dòng) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I expanded the article. Previously, there were zero sources. Now there are seven sources. Cunard (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• Withdraw per WP:HEY. @Cunard: Nice rescue!4meter4 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:HEY, thanks Cunard. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:16, 16 February 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.

Oxford Science Studies

Oxford Science Studies (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)

WP:BEFORE done, and it would appear to me that is a run of the mill student coaching business. Given the article was created 2 Feb 2026 and mostly relies citations from 2009 and 2010, it would appear that its WP:TOOSOON is too late a number of years ago. The phasing "OXSS is widely considered in the UK as a key authority on revision, with national coverage in newspapers, offering revision advice and guidance" looks to me hella hinkey Wikipedia:AISIGNS. That said, it would appear that this article fails any number of tests for notability, including but not limited to WP:GNG, WP:NHSCHOOL and WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The entry includes, in equal measures, references to older news articles (2009 and 2010) and recent news articles (2022, and two from 2025) to demonstrate that it is not a ' is a run of the mill student coaching business'. SchoolViewer (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Keep With the rise of child safeguarding concerns, specifically with revision and tutoring operations, it is important to demonstrate where there are notable, reputable organisations, who have been in operation for significant periods of time at reputable venues and with third party news and media referrals. The article includes news, media, links to other approved Wikipedia sources and external, third party references. SchoolViewer (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  ^ ^ This editor is the creator of the article. RipplingRiver (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  There are many great places to find information about which school is best for a child. An online encyclopedia isn't that kind of resource. SenshiSun (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant promotional COI article, scarcely even cited, written by an SPA. It also bothers me that it's called "Oxford" when there is no real or proven connection to Oxford University. RipplingRiver (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Keep The subjective response, above, does not differentiate the place of "Oxford" from the University located in Oxford. Oxford is clearly a city and separate from the University of Oxford. While RipplingRiver declares they are 'bothered', there is clearly no attempt in the article to demonstrate a connection to the university. SchoolViewer (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  You only get to say "keep" once. Saying it again doesn't make your case stronger. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have now stricken the "Keep" part of his reply. RipplingRiver (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  What does SPA mean, for the record? SenshiSun (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Single-purpose account. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete promotional trash that misrepresents passing mentions as praise and displays, as the nominator says, hella hinkey Wikipedia:AISIGNS. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree it's hinky. It looks like the school's website has very similar phrasing and grammar issues. Delete. Most coverage seems like promotion. I did find This article from a site that feels less promotional. but I am not 100% confident it's RS. SenshiSun (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:ORG / WP:GNG. The sourcing isn't there to meet our notability criteria.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I do not see sources that describe the subject in depth, only profiles of the organization (with useful information like "key factors" and "what makes us different from other companies") and brief mentions in news articles. -- Reconrabbit 21:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - this should have gone through AfC, it would not have emerged from that process unless GNG had been found. Currently this article does not meet WP:NCORP and seems unlikely to do so in the near future. The COI question on the editor's talk page has not been answered. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources don't cover the subject well, doesn't appear notable. Would need to be rewritten for WP:PROMO as well. Ajheindel (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, the secondary sources mostly just offer passing mentions. The one source which covers it in some depth has an "About Us" page that says it only publishes positive reviews, so I'm skeptical of its reliability. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 20:03, 14 February 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.

André M. Levesque

André M. Levesque (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)

Resume-article and gng is not satisfied. A cited local news article has significant coverage but this is not qualifying. Many sources do not verify facts in the article, they do not mention the subject. Why were they added? The red flag of paid editing makes this worse. It is non-notable, promotional, unverified. OrangeWaylon (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Canada. OrangeWaylon (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Impressive photos, but I don't see much in the way of media coverage. The name is rather common, so you pull up a variety of people. Nominated to the Order of Ontario, which would be notable, but I don't see much of anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep in my opinion, WP:NPROF#2 is easily met (he has received the Order of Ontario for his work in the field of memorialogy); NPROF#6 is met because he was head of the Priory of Canada of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. Technically, NPROF#1 may also be met, with 45,000 downloads for this work. While the sources aren’t as in-depth as I would hope, they do demonstrate that he is considered to be one of the preeminent scholars in memorialogy. The sourcing could use some improvement, but this is obviously a job for clean-up not deletion. SharkEnthusiast (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Comment We do not count downloads. According to Google Scholar he has an h-factor if 1. I do not think WP:NPROF is at all relevant. He may pass under other criteria, I leave that to others. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SharkEnthusiast (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Oaktree's comment. The significance of the Order of Ontario counting towards notability here is questionable (is it possible to receive the award and be unnotable, too?). So we are perhaps left to look elsewhere for coverage. There is an interview and short local news profile but quite little beyond that. IMO, the subject does not seem too far from being notable, but the standard for significant coverage in RS doesn't seem to be there for now. Jay-GH 04:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Per the above. There's no reason not to accept the Order of Ontario as a notable award, it's the highest level civilian honour in Ontario. This articles states that "His citation for the Order of Ontario, to which he was appointed in 2020, notes that he is a "pioneer of memorialogy, the study of memorials and commemoration."" This is a criteria #1 and #2 pass for me. He also held the highest level administrative post in the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888), which suggests criteria #6 might be met. TinyObjects (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - He has received an award (Order of Ontario) and there is some coverage in secondary sources at Google Book and Google Scholar. IJA (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The Order of Ontario is not prestigious enough for WP:ANYBIO, as it is a provincial order, and he was awarded it along with 46 other people. I didn't check most references in the article, but the only sigcov piece I found is the one provided by the nominator. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kelob2678: Did you mean keep per ANYBIO? You wrote delete...4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I meant delete, didn't include "not". Kelob2678 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:ANYBIO for being knighted by France. While the Ontario award isn't at that level as pointed out by Kelob2678, the knight level of France's Ordre national du Mérite is of sufficient merit to pass that SNG guideline.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It's not a knighthood. It's the lowest level of the order. The fact it translates as "knight" doesn't mean anything. We have long held that the lower levels of French orders are not sufficient to pass ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment The article's a BLP violation. Most of the sources don't mention the subject, and most of the info is unverified. I consider it a WP:TNT job, if kept it'll need to be stubbed. OrangeWaylon (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. While none of his awards are probably sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, taken together I believe they easily are. Plus I think he meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep -- Orders of merit, heads of Priorys, international decorations, honorary doctorates -- these are the definitions of external recognition. Any of them is close to or probably enough. Together, it's a no-brainer, Keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Keep as an academic with significant impact outside their field as evidenced by all of his awards. jwtmsqeh (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep plenty of significant coverage. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• There's one good local news source which isn't enough significant coverage to indicate notability. GreenOntarian (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Most of the !keep votes are based on the belief that although the subject has failed every criteria put forth, it still "ought to be" notable. His knighthoods, orders and awards are insufficient to pass ANYBIO, they are below national or highest level distinctions. His citations and insignificant coverage are far from NPROF and GNG. Combining multiple failed criteria and non-notable awards does not "add up" to a pass. The right option must be delete, leaving open a path for recreating it when notability is met. GreenOntarian (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Passes WP:ANYBIO#1 through multiple national and international honours, including the Order of Ontario, Officer of the Order of Military Merit (Canada), Knight of the National Order of Merit (France), Knight of the Legion of Honour (France), and the Freedom of the City of London. HerBauhaus · talk 09:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Those awards do not pass ANYBIO. The knighthoods are all low level which is not enough. The Order of Ontario and freedom of the city, which are neither national nor international, have been established to not meet ANYBIO. The freedom of the city has 2,000 recipients each year. GreenOntarian (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• The honours don't meet the traditional standards of ANYBIO. This leaves the question of whether multiple non-notable awards can be considered notable. GreenOntarian (talk) 16:07, 16 February 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.

Playstudios

Playstudios (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:NCORP. And it looks like undeclared paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. It does seem like the creator has a conflict of interest. This does not meet any of our guidelines for notability. Aneirinn (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. It passes WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, or WP:NBASIC. All sources used are from reliable, independent third-party media organizations. This subject has been extensively covered by reputable media organizations and is a publicly traded company on Nasdaq stock exchange.

Its games are some of the most popular free-to-play mobile games and have been widely reported in the press to easily pass WP:NCORP which states that:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

2. Be completely independent of the article subject.

3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.

4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

This requirement is clearly met with the following sources from very reputable media organisations including the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Las Vegas Sun, and dozens of other WP:RS that are easily visible with a simple WP:BEFORE. See these sources here. RafiRaga (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly WP:ADMASQ with many trivial mentions but failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Sole creator is a totally new account, such a user making a detailed article about a business with dubious notability almost certainly has a COI. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom and ZXC. Gommeh 📖   🎮 06:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Comment, I have no conflict of interest whatsoever in this article as it is being alleged only because the account has not made thousands of edits. It is important to note that creating articles on Wikipedia is not a rocket technology. Anyone who can read and write and is capable of learning and logical reasoning can learn and create decent articles. I created it because its a popular games developer with several sources that demonstrate its notability for an entry here. All sources used in the article have simply been dismissed with a wave of hand based on presumed conflict of interest which none of the editors have clearly pointed out what constitutes that conflict of interest in this article. None has also taken time to present and analyze one-by-one sources referenced in the article. The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Las Vegas Sun and dozens of others available online provide significant coverage to pass WP:NCORPDEPTH. No single editor has also taken time to point out what makes this article WP:ADMASQ. I request that experienced editors to do an objective and unbiased analysis of the references and point out what make them fall below WP:RS that leads to the subject falling below WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC and WP:NCORP minimum threshold. The analysis should kindly present each source and analyze it based on its own merit. Doing this helps new editors to learn and improve. Attacking and making general comments that do not point out the specific things that make this article a conflict of interest for amendment does not help editors improve. RafiRaga (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, did we read the same article? Multiple reliable sources, all reporting directly on the subject at hand, each of which have multiple paragraphs. And using COI as a sword is a weak accusation; a new COI writer would have included far more promotional language and would have immediately jumped the gun for their company article. Unless you think they have a conflict of interest involving lemon chiffon, and the rivers of Nishnabotna, I'd say this person is certified genuine. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: there are WP:RS sources with WP:SIGCOV referenced in the article. A WP:BEFORE produced multiple reliable sources with significant coverage that are not yet in the article. Sources from Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Games Beat, Mobile Gamer Biz used in the article are all in the list of reliable sources and they all provided significant coverage. Thought the WSJ and Bloomberg are behind pay wall, the fact that their headlines are about the subject of the article means that those pieces give significant coverage. COI? Not a valid reason to come to AFD, it should be cleaned. Runmastery (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Note to editors; article has been updated with more references after the nomination. Subsequent votes/comments should be based on the current status of the article. RafiRaga (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, it has multiple secondary sources containing significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth, completely independent of the article subject to meet WP:NCORP standard. Museveni1700 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some closer analysis of the sources might be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Sourcing has a bunch of press releases. Guz13 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Analysis by User:Museveni1700

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-01/mgm-backed-playstudios-to-go-public-via-1-1-billion-spac-deal				✔ Yes
https://www.animationxpress.com/games/playstudios-honored-as-2021-top-publisher-awards-winner-by-app-annie/		~		~ Maybe
https://www.wsj.com/business/hospitality/mobile-gaming-developer-playstudios-is-going-public-through-merger-11612218876				✔ Yes
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/benchmark-co-maintained-buy-rating-134514062.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAM2KekY2zAbkK_9rfvyfuxUVbXgJDa_kOeOLe4aBn1q07jcs8lYzU7kMApkGMN5HwpWTzGSo9-Veqmwtk_zscEaQHrm2jaNfQpwYqnhm5XjzumpOEb88CgtSyI5xtgWCeeLoz8ztCvaYHiBFFWjBy1gMj5XZjSgkxSECe2-z4Y6V		~		~ Maybe
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/playstudios-6-5-million-investor-settlement-gets-court-sendoff				✔ Yes
https://igamingbusiness.com/casino-games/social-gaming/playstudios-expands-teams-in-vietnam-and-serbia/				✔ Yes
https://www.marketbeat.com/instant-alerts/playstudios-inc-nasdaqmyps-receives-average-recommendation-of-hold-from-analysts-2026-01-22/				? Unknown
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-playstudios-buys-israeli-game-studio-scene53-1001145379				✔ Yes
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-playstudios-buys-israeli-game-studio-scene53-1001145379		~ Some parts of the article read like promotional copy		~ Maybe
https://gamesbeat.com/playstudios-launches-myvegas-slots-mobile-game-with-real-world-rewards-at-mgm-properties/				✔ Yes
https://vegasinc.lasvegassun.com/news/2021/feb/19/billion-dollar-decade-startup-enjoys-meteoric-rise/				✔ Yes
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/mypsw		~		? Unknown
https://www.pocketgamer.biz/playstudios-exclusive-rightstetris-mobile-games/				✔ Yes
https://gamingamerica.com/news/1990/playstudios-adds-mgm-northfield-park-to-player-rewards-portfolio				✔ Yes
https://mobilegamer.biz/casino-specialist-playstudios-buys-casual-game-maker-brainium-for-70m/				? Unknown
https://www.law360.com/articles/2420089				? Unknown
https://gamingamerica.com/news/7643/playstudios-announces-content-licensing-deal-with-igt				? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

• Looks sufficient for Keep by the analysis. IgelRM (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass WP:NCORP. The source analysis showed multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per LocomotiveEngine. KrispyBlueJays (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete None of the sources meet WP:NCORP criteria for in-depth "independent content" *about* the *company*. The analysis and comments above suffer from two fundamental misunderstandings. The first - coverage of a game published by the company only goes to notability of the game and cannot be used to establish notability of the company WP:INHERIT unless there is also sufficient content about the company that meets the criteria. This topic is about the company. The second, quantity of "coverage" has zero bearing on whether the company is notable. Saying there is lots of WP:RS coverage is *not* one of the criteria. You must be able to point to individual sources which meet all of NCORP's criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  At a glance, Las Vegas Weekly and Bloomberg Law sources are both about the company and significant. IgelRM (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Do we dismiss all sources as unreliable, press releases, sponsored posts or paid for articles or primary sources? While the sourcing of this article is not the best, it is certainly not the worst either. There are multiple independent sources addressing the subject directly with significant coverage.

This reporting by Wall Street Journal written by Katherine Sayre published on February 1, 2021 with headline: “Mobile-Gaming Developer Playstudios Is Going Public Through Merger; The deal values the company, founded by a former casino executive, at $1.1 billion”, addresses the subject directly in the entire piece.

This Bloomberg reporting written by Christopher Palmeri and Gillian Tan published on February 1, 2021 does not present any indicator of a paid for article, press release or sponsored post. Both WSJ and Bloomberg articles are about the subject going public with each written by different reporters, different angles of repoerting and tone.

This reporting published by AnimationExpress gives the byline as “written by AnimationExpress Team”, addresses the subject directly in multiple paragraphs significant enough to count. Though I am not familiar with publisher’s policy about bylines in their articles, there is nothing in the article to show that it’s a paid for or sponsored article.

Though this reporting by Games Beat written by Dean Takahashi in 2013 is about the subject’s game, the subject of article (Playstudios) is mentioned seven times across five paragraphs in the reporting. If this is not significant on its own merit to pass WP:NCORP indepth, it will count for WP:NBASIC. There is nothing in the reporting showing it to be a press release or paid for piece.

This reporting by Bloomberg Law written by Gillian R. Brassil (legal reporter) published in September 2025 with the headline “Playstudios’ $6.5 Million Investor Settlement Gets Court Sendoff” addresses the subject directly.

These reporting by iGaming Business, Gamming America, Mobile Gamer, Law360, Pocket Gamer and Las Vegas Sun all have bylines (writer names), address the subject directly with significant coverage. Nothing in them to show that they are paid for pieces.

Analyzing the sources in comments could be better than dismissing the entire sourcing. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It needs better sourcing--but this is a notable game studio. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 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.

Al-Wahda Stadium

Al-Wahda Stadium (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:NBUILDING. I'm not entirely sure whether it is a hoax, but regardless there doesn't seem to be coverage of it in reliable secondary sources. ApexParagon (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

(Note: There is an article about it on the Arabic Wikipedia, but the only 2 sources it uses is the English Wikipedia article (obviously not reliable), and a WordPress article by "Afash News", which I cannot confirm to be a legitimate news source. They seem to have no presence outside of user-generated content sites like YouTube and Instagram.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Besides its lack of notability, doesn't work as a redirect since there are several Al-Wahda teams in Arabic football. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: A stadium that hosted Yemen's first and only international tournament is notable. Sources on it exist in Arabic 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  So where are the sources? Svartner (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not WP:SIGCOV, but I do have a BBC article mentioning it in passing here so it's not a hoax.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This stadium was actually a strategic site during the battle of Zinjibar, though I'm not sure if this is relevant to the article itself. This is the latest verifiable article I've come across of it (from 2013 by state newspaper al-Thawra describing plans for renovations). Since then I've seen passing mentions of it in civil war-related engagements, but not much to suggest that its still in use. Hsnkn (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete all searches on Google for "Al-Wahda Stadium" instead turn up for Al-Nahyan Stadium. If you put in "Al-Wihda Stadium" on Google Maps, you instead get a place called Aden International Stadium - I do not know if they are one and the same. KarelOrHarken555 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Zinjibar per the spirit of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I suspect that even if it doesn't meet notability, relevant content can be added (probably using arabic sources and the BBC article), to Zinjibar. Regardless, it has gotten quite a few views, making it a plausible redirect. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:37, 16 February 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.

Embassy of Niger, Washington, D.C.

Embassy of Niger, Washington, D.C. (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:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG as lacking significant secondary source coverage. Currently lacks any secondary sources, little more than a directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Niger, and Washington, D.C.. AusLondonder (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Niger#America, per WP:ATD-R.--~2026-33418-5 (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose this because the list entry contains absolutely zero information about the embassy and a redirect in this case is unsuitable per WP:R#DELETE as it makes it "unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles (such as Niger–United States relations) via the search engine." AusLondonder (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  The information from here can be added to that article and the relations article linked therein. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete all the article does is state it exists. WP:ORG not met. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Niger–United States relations#Resident diplomatic missions The most proper and usual ATD for these embassy articles. Nathannah • 📮 00:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Niger as the most logical location, while not opposed to the other proposal here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  In the interest of consensus, I am not opposed to the alternative. Ill let the closer have discretion over which. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Niger–United States relations#Resident diplomatic missions. This target is more specific and has a reference and an image. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Niger–United States relations#Resident diplomatic missions Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 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.

Black Swan (comics)

Black Swan (comics) (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 minor comic book character (or two...) does not appear to be notable (no reception/analysis, just a plot summary). Per ATD-R, suggest redirecting to a relevant list of Marvel comic book characters (could also consider Black Order (comics), but that group's own notability is dubious). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. We can't merge it with Black Order as there are two characters who were named Black Swan. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. There's at least this web article on the topic. Daranios (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B per WP:NOTPLOT. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:47, 17 February 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.

Ecu.test

Ecu.test (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 guidelines. I can't find any way to verify the text citations in the article. User who created the article is banned and it's most likely there's still a COI with the article where I would be open to WP:TNT. (TT-Nadja → TT = Tracetronic) – The Grid (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Germany. – The Grid (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Likely PROMO, I can only find things about ECU test tools, not this particular software. Primary sourcing is all there seems to be Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Absolute failure of ncorp and any standard of notability. OrangeWaylon (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't find anything about the company, just documentation for the software. The German wiki page doesn't appear to have anything notable as well. Ajheindel (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NCORP Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 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.

Tanukii Studios

Tanukii Studios (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)

Current sources are either unreliable or WP:PRIMARY. A BEFORE search turned up no independent coverage. 11WB (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. 11WB (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: There are reliable sites used as sources but they are also all WP:PRIMARY and as such do not establish notability. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 14:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and possible WP:COI. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no results on google scholar or google books to suggest coverage in secondary sources. IJA (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Corporate websites, interviews and social media aren't reliable sources Milkywaythegodfather (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge to Go! Go! Kokopolo as WP:ATD, looking at their socials it seems to be their only main/notable title they developed. Jumpytoo Talk 02:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Go! Go! Kokopolo Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - per 11WB and Zxcvbnm, fails WP:Primary, WP:COI, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of sourcing. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 17 February 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.

Tora-Con

Tora-Con (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)

Procedural nomination. A temporary account was trying to create an AFD on February 7, but the nom didn't appear to transclude. I couldn't find any logs created by the attempt. I can see a note from Bearian at Talk:AFD that the nom was flawed in an unfixable way. I'm creating this AFD to assist the TA. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and New York. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep While most of the sources are more locally based, there's enough reliable and independent sources to justify keeping the article. Esw01407 (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: To make the TA's rationale for the AFD clear, they had concerns about it meeting WP:GNG and WP:GEOSCOPE, in particular the references to AnimeCons.com, the event history table, and the founding date. The talk page discussion can be found at Talk:Tora-Con#Notability concerns - sourcing does not establish WP:GNG. I do agree with the TA that using AnimeCons.com may violate WP:USERG, but I'm not entirely convinced that the rest of their concerns (while valid) merit deletion. And I also agree with Esw, local sources can be reliable even if they aren't listed at WP:RS. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 14:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: Posted a message at the TA's talk page to come participate here, just to make sure they are aware of this AFD in case they want to add something. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 14:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the sources are reliable enough for the information presented, and everything seems to be cited (without going through every source to confirm). Ajheindel (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I think that there are enough sources to suggest that it passes WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I am the TA that proposed deletion. For everyone voting Keep, which sources cover the subject in depth? Most are not independent of the subject, or only contain passing mention. Look at the sources carefully before jumping to conclusions... ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Addendum @Esw01407: @Gommeh: @Ajheindel: @IJA: Check the following Talk:Tora-Con#Reviewing_the_sources_for_reliability_and_in-depth_coverage. Most of the sources do not cover Tora-Con in depth, the few that might do are from RIT Reporter, which is not independent. Consistent standards must be maintained. You may dispute this of course, if you wish. Multiple articles from Reporter count as a single source.

Finally, I see that AnimeCons.com is used for most anime conventions on Wikipedia, so I am fine with this staying. However, I still think in general, the article is not notable. ~2026-88582-5 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Reporter Magazine - On the sources debate page, you posted "I did not dispute Reporter's independence." in our discussions about it. they also list clearly on their webpage "Our coverage is independent of any external organization or interests and is not subject to review by the university." This wiki article has been put together in pieces, some little, some bigger, like most wiki articles. I'm still holding my position of keep. Esw01407 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot about the independent status. I am not sure if a Wikipedia article can be created mostly from multiple articles from a student-run magazine. From WP:GNG: "multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." ~2026-88582-5 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: I stated at the outset this was a procedural nomination, and while I see some disagreement about sources, nobody's actually made a delete assertion in almost seven days. Thought I would point that out. BusterD (talk) 02:33, 16 February 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.

Marie Anusorn School

Marie Anusorn School (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 in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. Tagged for notability since 2022. My BEFORE didn't yield a single source with SIGCOV. Just social media handles and directories. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Thailand. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:09, 9 February 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.

Mohamed Benmagri

Mohamed Benmagri (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)

9 of the 10 references are essentially the same self published article re-published on various sites so not seeing independent RS coverage that could establish GNG, declined at AFC 5 times under variations of name since 22 January 2026 (see creators User talk) Josey Wales ^Parley 14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Education, and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. None of the sources are reliable, as they are basically identical. His claim to notability is 770,000 TikTok subscribers, which is not really that many. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Per Kelob. Svartner (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Per all above. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Wp:PROMO Zuck28 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Thomas Winslow invented "edutainment" in the 1960s. This page is filled with such extraordinary misrepresentations. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – clearly not notable, and the article is basically just an advertisement. It was not only declined multiple times in AfC but also rejected, see this. --bonadea contributions talk 14:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Notability Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 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.

Shadow Fighter

Shadow Fighter (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 was about to move it to create a disambig (since it doesn't appear to be the primary meaning), but... is this even notable? No references, Korean Wikiepdia article is no better, this substub doesn't even tell us what year this is from (it's from 2005...), and my BEFORE fails to find any WP:SIGCOV reliable material. Even Korean popular Wikipedia contributor with the usual low bar for popculture trivia doesn't have much to say about it (Namu Wiki entry). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep I added several sources and expanded the article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep --Namoroka (talk) 06:28, 11 February 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 Passage into Forlorn

A Passage into Forlorn (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)

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• There are reviews of a compilation album that includes the entirety of this album: Metal.de: , Powermetal.de: . --Mika1h (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Neuraxis (band)#Discography. A review of a compilation is different from a review of an album. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Neuraxis (band)#Discography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 05:30, 17 February 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.

Arterial Roads of Adelaide

Arterial Roads of Adelaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be an unnecessary and undeveloped content fork of list of road routes in South Australia. In its current form seems likely to be a WP:COATRACK for excessive detail about otherwise non-notable subjects. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of road routes in South Australia per nom. The only road discussed in the article is McIntyre Road, but the page focuses mainly on things only tangentially related to it. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:COATRACK. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 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.

Miss Nicaragua 2002

Miss Nicaragua 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources to justify WP:SIGCOV; fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 16:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Nicaragua. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep.

WP:NLIST:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

Obvious informational merit (list of placements) of the article or its navigation purpose (chronology being the most obvious, interwiki another).

WP: SPLITLIST:

Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page.

The list needs more sources and probably trimming, but deletion does not seem necessary.

--~2026-47538-0 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. NLIST is an irrelevant guideline as this belongs under WP:NEVENT. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  That page is very much a list-page, although it is related to an event. But if you prefer a non-list-related guideline, WP:OKFORK applies. And sources have been added anyway. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep These should have been bundled as a set. This does not have a Spanish version, but 2008 to 2020 and 2023 do. Those have a few sources and I imagine this is fairly well sourced in Spanish media. Perhaps someone more familiar with Spanish can help with that. On the other hand I dont really care about Miss anything and I am skeptical of using non English articles for notability, despite guidance that I think says its fine. Have to look into that again. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 9 February 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.

TheBurntPeanut

TheBurntPeanut (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 a lack of notability for this streamer for a standalone article. There are plenty of streamers including many Twitch streamers like MontanaBlack or even plenty of FaZe Clan members have significantly higher views or engagements on both Twitch or Youtube without Wikipedia articles. Notable exceptions like Shroud or IShowSpeed have shown plenty of notability other than just be a simple streamer like this guy. Megabyte21 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Sports. Megabyte21 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The lack of other articles for potentially more notable personalities does not give any merit for deletion. Perhaps the issues lie in that more articles need to be created, not deleted. Also, the notability guideline does not refer to how “popular” a subject is, more so the verifiability of the information present. ~2026-89266-4 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Next time you should sign in also can I create a Wikipedia article on myself then? More articles need to be created right so why I think I am pretty notable aswell I also like hiding behind a camera and being a vtuber? I am also chronically online to know enough that atleast 60,000 articles about these streamers should be created Megabyte21 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete A very lousy and gossipy article, and before anybody brings it up, winning or being nominated for an award based mainly on fan voting, even a Game Award, does not clinch WP:N at all. Nathannah • 📮 21:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes delete it, this article sucks. my friend said he viewbots. THis article sucks ~2026-89862-6 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, lack of significant coverage of this streamer in reliable sources. ApexParagon (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete no decent secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - some notability, but coupled with lack of reliable sources, both secondary and primary, article fails WP:N. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Even if this page gets deleted it will be back eventually. This streamer pulls in more viewers each night than every other popular streamer combined. And every other popular streamer has a wikipedia page. The rise is at breakneck speeds. ~2026-10357-59 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 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.

Kevin Trapp (American soccer)

Kevin Trapp (American soccer) (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 lacks the needed coverage from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Nominator also should add something like "I searched for coverage on Google but only the German footballer came up". ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little more actual discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – All five sources present on the article are primary (linked to the college or the club he represented at the time). Aside from his two years of professional career, I found nothing else. Svartner (talk) 00:38, 11 February 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.

Game World Navigator

Game World Navigator (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 search turned up nothing, other than a few listings. I don't believe this magazine is notable. 11WB (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Video games. 11WB (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep A news article was written about it, and it was covered on TV, in these conference proceedings, and in this paper. Kelob2678 (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as a notable 30-year running magazine passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as ru:ВП:АИКИ. It is one of the largest Russian game magazines that survived pretty much all others published for almost 30 years. Even a cursory search shows that it has been referenced by dozens of sources hundreds of times. Many of these are significant sources for GNG, such as the afore-mentioned DTF article or Yandex Дзен article or Спорт-Экспресс section or Кинопоиск section. Plus the stuff Kelob2678 mentions and RU wiki sources. Just as an example of ongoing coverage, the magazine adding non-PC or game dev section to it gets mentioned by news blurb, 2 / news blurb. Previously, for VG/RS research, I produced some of the mentions, such as this interview with editor. So there is plenty of content for the article. I haven't even searched through contemporary print sources and magazines. Lots of stuff in Russia also gets TV and newspaper coverage, but those archives are near-impossible to search. And now lots of web links are 404ing and not easily searchable. Given time, one could surely dig into this more. English Wikipedia coverage of non-English magazines is very poor, but all the major ones are most certainly passing GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. As written fails WP:NOTPROMO for being built entirely from a single source that is not independent of the magazine. If editors want to keep this, they need to comply with WP:PRODUCT (this is a commercial magazine) and write an article built from independent sourcing. Demonstrating source existence is not enough, because there are other issues besides notability relevant at WP:DEL-REASON (particularly WP:NOT compliance).4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @4meter4: Since your primary concern stems from the article as currently written, I have rewritten it completely based on the sources, citing everything and only including the main secondary sources identified above. Hopefully, this should be enough for WP:HEY to address your concern about single-source PROMO? —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 13:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Good work. Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 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.

Oppo Joy Plus

Oppo Joy Plus (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, I didn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Current references are only database listings. Mika1h (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and China. Mika1h (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Oppo Joy per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I found announcement posts here, here, and here. Aside from the announcement posts, I did not find significant coverage such as reviews.

  This article says, "Successor to Oppo Joy, the Joy Plus sports a 4-inch WVGA (480x800p) display." The merge target, Oppo Joy, has received reviews like this, this, and this.

  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Oppo Joy per Cunard. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:32, 9 February 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.

Buzunesh Gudeta

Buzunesh Gudeta (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 evidence of this runner meeting the WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Ethiopia. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm confused as to why winning the Frankfurt Marathon in under 2:20 not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  She might be notable. As per WP:SPORTBASIC, All sports biographies... must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. JTtheOG (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Multiple reliable sources with coverage (much more than barrel mentions). Per WP:Basic: “if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability“. ~2026-67504-7 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:31, 9 February 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.

Vicente Gatica

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

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

Not notable. No WP:SIGCOV. Only played 105 minutes in Chile's league. This is another person. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chile, Football, and Sportspeople. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – Player satisfies the criteria to have a Wikipedia article, having played professional football in his country. The requirement isn't tied to a number of minutes played or a specific tier of a league, but if the player played football professionally, which he is verified to have done. Ardije (talk) 9 February 2026

The "criteria" you are referring to do not exist. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep, WP:NFOOTBALL has been abolished. GiantSnowman 19:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY: not perfect, but improved sourcing since nominated. Bearian (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• I believe the sourcing is abysmal Geschichte (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:Geschichte

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worldfootball.net/person/pe336214/vicente-gatica/			Database profile	✘ No
https://chile.as.com/resultados/ficha/deportista/vicente_gatica/27278/			Database profile	✘ No
https://www.diarioconcepcion.cl/deportes/2022/12/05/se-reinvento-en-los-libros-pero-sin-dejar-de-lado-la-redonda.html	~ More than 50 % of the article consists of interview quotes		~ See "Independent?"	~ Maybe
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9M8FR2lfpD/	primary		Instagram...	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/vicente-gatica/303103/			Database profile	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

• Delete- Fails WP:GNG. Fcstmani (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - per the source analysis by User:Geschichte, WP:GNG is not met. C679 04:27, 17 February 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.

Togo–United Kingdom relations

Togo–United Kingdom relations (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 secondary sources about the topic present. Article makes some unsourced claims but overall contains very little content, other than nothing shared membership of organisations such as the WTO, reflecting a very limited relationship. UK doesn't even have a diplomatic mission in Togo. AusLondonder (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Foreign relations of Togo. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Foreign relations of Togo Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 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.

Niue–United Kingdom relations

Niue–United Kingdom relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One of the least useful bilateral relations articles I've seen. Article says they don't have any relations. The largest single section of the article talks about an economic agreement Niue is *not part of*. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Foreign relations of Niue#Bilateral relations – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  If consensus is to delete this article that section should be removed from the article because all it says is that the UK and Niue have no diplomatic relations and the UK doesn't recognise Niue as sovereign. AusLondonder (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oceania and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Foreign relations of Niue#Bilateral relations as an WP:ATD. That the UK doesn't recognize Niue is important and should be mentioned independently of whether this article remains. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose a redirect because the UK and Niue don't have bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Neither do North Korea and the United States, and yet North Korea-United States relations. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  There's no relevance to this of North Korea-US relations, which actually is a clearly notable topic and has included head of state meetings. These situations couldn't be more different. AusLondonder (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep Considering that Niue was briefly governed by the United Kingdom, there is an obvious connection between the two countries, and we can expand the article with information about when Niue was a British protectorate. Additionally, there is an (indirect) economic agreement between the two countries -- the article states that the UK and the Pacific States Forum (which Niue is a member of) signed a post-Brexit free trade agreement. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

We need sources, not speculation and one year of colonial governance in 1900 is not part of bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Niue does not relations with the United Kingdom. A redirect would only imply a relation that does not exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Foreign relations of Niue, despite the objections, there is a little bit on this. Not enough for an article, but enough to add to that page, where it makes the most sense. Its more significant to Niue than the UK. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  The content there should be removed because they don't have bilateral relations. If this is closed as delete, I will remove it. It's not significant to Niue because, again, they don't have any bilateral relations with the UK. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Niue#History, also fine with keep if someone expands the article. Rolluik (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  What purpose would a redirect there serve? AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 16 February 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.

Bibhatsu Thapa

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

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

Does not meet notability. A politician is not notable just for being a candidate. The player has not played any international cricket to be notable in that regard. PenGear (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Nepal, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. Failing Wp:NPOL. Zuck28 (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. As always, people do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if they were already eligible for articles on other grounds as it is. But this isn't demonstrating that at all — strictly speaking, one does not necessarily have to compete internationally to become notable as a cricketer, and people who only compete domestically can still clear the bar if their career in cricket is properly sourced as passing WP:GNG, but this article isn't passing that test. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NPOL Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:34, 14 February 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.

Asma Hussain

Asma Hussain (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)

Non-notable fashion designer. The current sources on the page and those ones that turned up in my BEFORE, all are interviews and PR-wired articles about her exhibitions or Iftar parties. Those constitute WP:PRIMARY and WP:PROMO. No independent SIGCOV in RS makes this a GNG failure. Besides, the page has been created by user "Amira husain" - which is also the name of her daughter. So it also leans towards an WP:AUTOBIO violation too. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, India, and Uttar Pradesh. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails notability criteria.--SatnaamIN (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. Doesn't seem to pass the notabilty criteria. Zuck28 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 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.

Nick Spano

Nick Spano (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 has been a one-paragraph stub sourced to nothing but IMDb since creation in 2006. When searching "Nick Spano" alongside various relevant key words, I found only TV Guide listings and name-drops in articles about Even Stevens. Jstor and a scan through industry magazines on archive.org yielded nothing whatsoever. GBooks gave only directory listings and TV Guide, and GNews turned up only "where are they now" articles on Even Stevens from unreliable looking celeb gossip/churnalism sites. All sources also turned up a number of false positives in reference to politician Nicholas A. Spano, which still showed up even after adding more key words.

All of his roles were minor one-shot characters except for co-hosting the game show Peer Pressure (which itself is something I really had to scrape to find any sources on at all) and a secondary character on Even Stevens, so I think it is extremely unlikely that he got any semblance of SIGCOV over time. Between the obscurity of his roles and the number of times I found Nicholas A. Spano referred to as "Nick", I don't think a redirect or merge is warranted here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - there is coverage in secondary sources at google books therefore it arguably passes WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Mea culpa, I should have spent more time actually analysing these secondary sources. They are brief mentions and not actual WP:SIGCOV. I don't think this bio passes WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer Did any of the celeb sites feature him as the main part of the content, or was it more passing? ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

TPH provided the sources and analysis on my TP, due to being TBAN in XFD comments. Only one had in depth coverage of Spano. The others were all of the actors. Also, looking at IMDB, he hasnt even really acted in much or in about 15 years with one exception, so there isnt much coverage of him. I wont be taking a stand here, but I wanted to share that for any interested. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Please note that there is also a local politician in Westchester County, NY, who has the same name. Bearian (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Ive been looking for an essay like that. Thanks ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:47, 12 February 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.

Adam Lanza

Adam Lanza (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)

Exclusively known for the infamous mass shooting. I highly doubt there is a single source in this article that doesn't mention the words "shooting" or "Sandy Hook". Xacaranda (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as WP:1E states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The Sandy Hook shooting is a highly significant event, there are articles on the reactions, conspiracy theories, a memorial, and gun control laws afterwards; And obviously Adam Lanza's role within it is a large one as he was the shooter. ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Keep as I added more reliable sources that are about Adam Lanza himself and the shooting. KungfusockandMJfan (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Delete as WP:1E also states "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person", and the article about the shooting is exhaustive and well sourced. Mass killers often seek attention, publicity and "recognition", and responsible WP editors should not provide them. The Columbine High School massacre perpetrators do not have their own articles. Hasn't this been discussed elsewhere, and if not, why not? Masato.harada (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  The Columbine shooters do have their own articles. PageTheEditor (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. Xacaranda (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Keep Clear notability per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Plenty of sustained third party sourcing since this happened.BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG as there is plenty of coverage in secondary sources at google books and google scholar. IJA (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Per WP:SNOWBALL. Zuck28 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: SNOWBALL isn't policy or a guideline, it's an essay. - Shearonink (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep He passes WP:PERP, because Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is is a well-documented historic event as required by the guideline. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this article should be deleted but the reason you just gave is not plausible. PageTheEditor (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Why? Kelob2678 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  There are many other notable mass shooters who don't have their own page. The problem is with this particular one, is that other editors have agreed not to have separate article for Lanza. Although, I don't think it should be deleted (I am not advocating for the article to remain live). PageTheEditor (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've made plenty of separate articles which have been suppressed numerous times. It's so unfair. But sometimes you just have to work with what you have. PageTheEditor (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Sandy Hook shooting is extremely prominent. It has pageviews equal to Columbine, more than 50 interwiki links, and many hits in Google Scholar. It was the subject of a book. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  There is already a separate page on the Sandy Hook shooting. PageTheEditor (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where there is already a substantial biography, including a close-up of his photo. This article is a content fork. WP:CRIME (same guideline as WP:PERP) says: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." and goes on to say "Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." This article actually fails WP:PERP because an article about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting already exists. The question should be: Is the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting too large to incorporate a biography of Lanza and is a sub-article needed? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Per others, WP:BIO1E does not apply since the event was significant, and Lanza's role in it was heavily documented in the reliable sources in the aftermath of the tragedy (cf. John Hinckley Jr.). JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Very obviously notable per WP:1E, WP:CRIME, WP:PERP and WP:GNG. There is an absolute mountain of coverage about the subject. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, James Holmes and Nikolas Cruz are clearly notable as their actions and pasts have been covered a lot by reliable sources, so it stands to reason that the same applies to Lanza. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 21:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Multiple editors have agreed not to have a separate article on the shooter. Also this form lacks accurate, or substantial evidence. PageTheEditor (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: There is virtually nothing in this former redirect that does not already exist in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. It's a WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. And, though WP:PSEUDO is an essay under Avoiding harm - and not policy or a guideline, I think it applies in this case:

An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context.

- Shearonink (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Merge is my second choice, removing any & all redundant content in this article before the merge (not sure what would actually be left of this, though?...) - Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)