Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 January 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 28 (Thu) May 27 (Wed) May 26 (Tue) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

More information < January 18, January 20 > ...

< January 18	January 20 >

Close

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Miner's Glory Medal

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG. From what I can tell the Russian wiki page is built solely from a government source which is not independent of the award.4meter4 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Russia. 4meter4 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep I found an article from local museum about it and a news article. The Russian Wikipedia also lists a 255-page book titled Кавалеры «Шахтёрской славы» [Recipients of the "Miner's Glory" award]. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep Surprised there isnt an article about Soviet medals generally. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Kelob2678 Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Summer Sundae. (non-admin closure) UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 11:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Summer Sundae Fringe Festival

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:EVENT and GNG. 1 google news hit. LibStar (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. Red Shell Momentum 22:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Summer Sundae; agree on lack of notability. Ideally merge in a condensed version of any verifiable material. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Summer Sundae seems perfect. ← Metallurgist (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Summer Sundae Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Central library, IIT Delhi

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

A version of this article was previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Central_Library,_Indian_Institute_of_Technology_Delhi. It has been recreated with a slightly different title. I would have requested speedy deletion per WP:G4 but the content is quite different from the first version. I still don't think it is notable. Ref. 1 is a festschrift, a "felicitation volume", so not necessarily independent. Ref 2 is not signficant coverage, it is a picture article with a single sentence and a photo of each of ten libraries in Delhi. I can't access ref 3. Ref 4 is written by two employees of the library, and is published in conference proceedings, and is about the digitization of the library in 2000. I suppose in a way it is significant coverage but it's not primarily about the library itself but about how they were working on digitizing it. The "sources exist" template was added by the user who created both this article and the previous version. I think the article should be deleted or redirected, again, to IIT Delhi, as was decided in the last deletion discussion. Lijil (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Delhi. Lijil (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Pinging editors who participated in the previous deletion discussion for this article: User:Xegma, User:Ldm1954, User:Sohom_Datta, User:Rjjiii, User:Oblivy, User:Sirfurboy.

Keep: per WP:HEY. Since the nomination, I have added multiple additional sources for consideration, which includes several peer-reviewed journal articles. For academic libraries, especially research libraries, significant coverage is more commonly found in scholarly and professional literature than in mainstream online media. Coverage of library activities often appears in offline sources such as newspapers, which limits the availability of online sources but does not negate notability.
Something which may be peripheral to strict AfD criteria, but which I want to share is that, this particular WP:GLAM instituiton is among a very small number of libraries in India (if not the only one) that currently maintains an active collaboration with the Wikimedia community. The library has appointed two Wikimedians-in-Residence, and I am one of them. As part of this role, I serve as a liaison between the library and the Wikimedia community. This is one of the earliest such collaborations of its kind in India.
This collaboration is important to the community, given that IIT Delhi is an Institution of Eminence (IoE) and an Institution of National Importance (INI) in India. The research, cultural, and academic materials held by its central library are of great value to the GLAM and wider knowledge communities. The article itself is neutrally written, contains no promotional language, and relies on verifiable sources.
I am concerned that this deletion could inadvertently undermine the confidence this institution has placed in the Wikimedia community at a time when GLAM partnerships in India remain extremely rare. And that the insitution's interest in such collaboration falter away. In this context, WP:IAR may reasonably apply where strict application of rules would prevent improvement of the project. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 22:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep page needs work but IIT is a prestigious Indian University and the central library of that institution is notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep Looks like there are many Google Scholar hits about this . Together with the series of papers by Hilal Ahmad added earlier, this establishes notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 04:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Kripaon Ki Mata Church

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

Non-notable Indian Catholic church; draftification was contested with no improvements and so here we are at AfD. Sources are:

Unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA content (, )
Catholic church database/directory/event listings (, )
Primary source Youtube videos published by the parish or affiliated entities (, )
A promotional article about the parish's priest ()
A permanently dead link:

I didn't find anything else qualifying in my BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Uttar Pradesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

In general, sources tend to be relatively sparse for topics related to the Hindi-speaking hinterland of North India, and more so for a topic related to a minority community.
There is no reason to suspect that the coverage in Amar Ujala, Hindustan (newspaper) and Bellevision are paid news or undisclosed advertorials or sponsored content. These are non-trivial secondary references.
Even though UCANews and Catholic Connect are related to the Catholic Church, and could therefore be considered primary sources, these are still reliable sources.
I have corrected the link to churchleaf.com

Based on the above, KEEP The Discoverer (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:NEWSORGINDIA -- content even in legitimate Indian news outlets without bylines (as in this case sourced to "Varanasi Bureau" or "Newswrap") are not considered reliable stories, and indeed both these articles read like press releases. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't state that articles with generic bylines are automatically to be considered unreliable, rather it is one aspect used to judge, alongside the tone and language of the article (factual, in this case), and overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites (no overlap). The Discoverer (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

One of them is an event promo, not independent coverage. The other is routine coverage of a procession with a promotional tone (conveying a message of peace and love.). This is exactly the kind of low-quality coverage that NEWSORGINDIA is designed to filter out of notability assessments. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Dclemens has explained why each of the sources fall below the WP:SIGCOV standard. Theya re either promotional coverage or routine event coverage from a primary source, not a reliable secondary source as required by WP:N. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 02:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Bollajira Aiyappa

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing really has changed since the last AfD. Article is absurdly refbombed with passing mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV, and the sources do not seem to establish notability under any criteria that might apply, e.g. WP:NACTOR, WP:NBUSINESS (as founder of a publishing house), WP:GNG. There are no linked articles in other language Wikipedias, and my WP:BEFORE still turned up no reliable sources with significant coverage. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I spot checked a few sources, and all were passing mentions. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous soft deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Name comes up in various articles, but I don't see much about his person to show notability. Article reads like PROMO with refbombing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Clearly promotional page. RangersRus (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROMO Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - it's sourced almost entirely from an obscure, local website, CoffeeLand News. That is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Existing sources seem to be WP:REFBOMB. Retro music11 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 04:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Merivale Road

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Fairly important street in Ottawa, I'm sure a lot of reliable sources can be found to improve the article.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Your vote is not based on any tangible evidence and falls under WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ITSNOTABLE argument fallacies which are discredited at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Your deletion nomination is not based on any tangible WP:BEFORE. Jahaza (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Anyone leaning towards keep must provide at least one source that passes WP:GNG. Retro music11 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
And people leaning towards delete should be looking for those sources as well. Jahaza (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep.. That's before looking at newspaper archives. Jahaza (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Lack of sources and significant coverage. Local coverage isn't enough for notability. Ajf773 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
This is not an actual rule. Local coverage is fine for showing notability. Jahaza (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

To say it is not completely without merit in policy is not true. We do have policies like WP:GEOSCOPE at WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:AUD at WP:ORGCRIT, and WP:NOTNEWS which considers the value of local media versus national or international press. It's a valid perspective with some policy based rationales, and the principles behind those policies could reasonably be extrapolated into other conversations on notability. That said, I don't think within GNG itself criticism of local sourcing is imbedded into our core notability guidelines, and I'm not seeing anything at Wikipedia:Reliable sources that would automatically discredit using local media. I would call this a grey area with room for interpretation either way. In this case the coverage seems reasonably well researched and independent. I would count it toward GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep I think the sources identified by Jahaza are enough. Also WP:ITSLOCAL is an argument to avoid. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Mimnermus in Church

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep. for starters. Jahaza (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I would consider only the Yale Literary Magazine source significant enough to count towards GNG. The others are superficial/trivial. There's no analysis in Hearn (at least visibly so)., Chambers and Selwyn mention it in passing. While Blythe gives the entire poem, he never engages with the text, and his commentary is basically limited to a single sentence indicating his view that the poem is representative of the author's views on spirituality at that time without diving into any textual meaning or analysis. The only real textual commentary of any substance about the poem is from the Yale publication. 4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

weak keep: also discussed here , with the other sources above, some evidence of critical discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep per Oaktree b Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to The Mad Capsule Markets discography. (non-admin closure) UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 11:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The Mad Capsule Markets 1997–2004

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment: There's a review from Get Ready to Rock!: . Red Shell Momentum 20:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan. Red Shell Momentum 20:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. As an aside, I'd have the same concern about The Mad Capsule Markets 1990–1996. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to The Mad Capsule Markets discography as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to The Mad Capsule Markets discography Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep after the game was officially announced during the AfD's course; meets GNG. Because of the official announcement (including release date), sources provided, and information contained in the article, I don't see any CRYSTALBALL/TOOSOON issues. (non-admin closure) Skyshiftertalk 01:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Life Is Strange: Reunion

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

A very pro forma AFD nomination; I believe combining the PEGI leak sources with sources about the upcoming announcement of a Life Is Strange game is WP:Original research. It doesn't appear to be officially stated that the upcoming game is related to the leak, so this is WP:CRYSTAL. Notability would be insufficient for an article about just the leak. To write about upcoming announcement is WP:TOOSOON. My suggested outcome is WP:DRAFTIFY and check after the announcement. IgelRM (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I would ask you to belay this nomination until January 21st. PEGI's rating of the game not too many weeks back establishes this is a well-along-the-way to be complete game satisfying WP:NVIDEOGAME. PEGI's information, despite the nature of its publication, stands veritable. Also, the reveal of the game is literally tomorrow. Much more information will be released, and once that occurs a more informed debate of WP:N can occur. Barnt Toust 00:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You've got it backwards - you shouldn't have published it until at least the 21st. There was simply no reason to rush out this barren draft. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we all know where is page is going to be by 3pm tomorrow, folks. Eh, it's bones now but it'll put on some meat real quick. Barnt Toust 01:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Life is Strange per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Can very, very easily be explained in the series article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Open to either redirecting or sending back to draft space. As is, this article is a massive violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, combining two separate reports of "ratings board leaks game title" and "Game publisher announces an announcement". Announcement has resolved SYNTH/OR concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm simply going to keep this saved as a draft and bang out probably twice the amount of currently existing content upon the reveal of the game by tomorrow. I know we can't be a WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I just don't see why we can't let things pan out like they pretty clearly are going to. Barnt Toust 01:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to close this now, someone uninvolved. I probably jumped the gun honestly, but tomorrow we'll reasess this page when appropriate. It's reverted to a series redirect and its page history will be useful when I pick up on it tomorrow afternoon and then just see where things stand. Barnt Toust 02:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't redirect it out of process... IgelRM would have to withdraw the AfD nomination, otherwise this is a withdrawal WP:SUPERVOTE. It's better to let them know you wish to redirect it so that they can withdraw the AfD, as IgelRM did not say anything about redirection whatsoever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

No, my redirecting could be construed as simply aligning the article with the WP:STATUSQUO, as this is what Serge did before this AfD, and we are the two editors with precedent in actions before this AfD. This AfD could still hypothetically end with the redirect being deleted, could still play out as a keep after this evening with new information. However, we can safely assume that nobody would mind simply having the title redirect to the series article atm, where by obvious practice it should go since info about this subject is hosted there. Barnt Toust 16:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of what happened before the AfD, it is an out of process redirect. Someone came along and said the page should be deleted rather than redirected. I obviously agree with the redirect as per my comment above but it needs to actually be agreed upon by the nom or it is a supervote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, now we can do as I said yesterday (and what everyone knew was going to happen all along) and think about the page's legitimacy now that the page has a bunch more stuff on it with the reveal of the game just happened. Barnt Toust 19:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyone want to WP:SNOW close this now? The game is confirmed to exist in all its veracity, all the pieces have fallen together and this is not WP:OR-concerned. Game comes out in two months, already has content rating, can't be WP:CRYSTAL. 15k bytes in the main article so far, 15 sources so far, WP:SIGCOV satisfied. Barnt Toust 20:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

By reccomendation of Serge, the sources establishing SIGCOV of this definitive game include the following:

GameSpot, GamesRadar, NME, Eurogamer, Polygon, TechRadar, IGN, Vice, VGC, Kotaku, Game Informer, PC Gamer. Barnt Toust 21:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@IgelRM: In-case you missed it, the game is now officially announced; do you intend to withdraw this nomination or leave it up? λ NegativeMP1 22:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
"Officially announced" means nothing due to WP:NOTNEWS. It still need WP:SIGCOV in the form of substantive information, which it STILL lacks. Maybe when previews come out it can be a full article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Uh, hello? It has a good start-off of information about the gameplay, narrative, substantial commentary on leaks and the reveal. Video game articles can get by existing without being B-class level of coverage. Barnt Toust 22:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Correct, but NOTNEWS wasn't the original nomination rationale. It was that the game wasn't officially announced yet. The question about whether the nominator intends to withdraw the nomination or not still remains. λ NegativeMP1 23:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
They also mentioned TOOSOON, which is essentially the same thing. Both concern jumping the gun with making video game articles because Wikipedia isn't a VG news site that is obligated to report every announcement right away. There has to be sufficient info for a detailed article, and in this case there isn't even enough for SUSTAINED to be passed since the game was literally just announced (besides vague rumors of "a sequel"). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
And yet there is plenty enough of information out there for a start-class article, and the game comes out in 2 months. It is all but guaranteed that more information will come out about it. The litmus test is that all the information that is there now, would all of it be of a fitting SCOPE in the series article to be presented SUMMARYSTYLE as a subsection? I think not. Details of the actual, existent gameplay, and the reactions and context of the game are there now as they stand, and it would not be quite fitting to have something that remains so developed in the series article.

Also, has coverage not been demonstratably SUSTAINED where we note that ramblings of the sequel and the reactions of disgruntled developers has been going on since last year? Barnt Toust 00:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Right, I realize this AFD has become rather outdated since this announcement took place. However, despite that this AFD closer will have no tangible outcome; I think I can leave it open in the spirit of possible consensus when my arguments timely applied against the article. If people agree with me, we would have at least a precedent for similar articles in the future. IgelRM (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Really, how exactly is an article whose release section points out prior series backlash and current series skepticism and development issues, "promotional"? Barnt Toust 19:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
The dev section appears to be padding, one of the sentences (about a previous leak) is currently irrelevant and the other is WP:CRYSTAL (speculation about dev issues). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
What remains true is that IGN is saying there was trouble among developers, the only doubt to that is in your editorialozation. Regarding the other thing, unless a clear delineation is made in other sources of it, "new Life Is Strange game in development" ties obviously into "new Life Is Strange game revealed". Maybe there was another one in development in 2025? Maybe this one just got pulled out of thin air? The basis of your argument on connecting the two is the one that is speculative, if anything. Barnt Toust 17:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, dude, the "previous leak" regarding the reporting of the game being reportedly in development in 2025 was literally noted by Video Games Chronicle on their article on the PEGI leak (which is now substantiated, BTW), and the second sentence suggested by IGN was literally made note of by them in their article about the announcement of the full reveal. The WP:RS are making these connections from fully informed reporting. You are just here playing devil's advocate for discrediting this article's existence, and it is annoying the hell out of me. Barnt Toust 18:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
I am not attempting to "play devil's advocate", only noting legitimate problems with its notability as it stands. I also think that the article is almost certain to be notable right before or after its release when it gets actual previews or reviews, but isn't right now when it just has very basic information and rumors people are trying to Voltron into an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Most of what "points" you've made above, I have pointed out logical flaws in them. Mainly, you seem to take issue with the nature of many sources (we are not a court where "evidence" is deemed "inadmissible" if there is any shadow of doubt as to its inherent nature) despite them all being proven retroactively valid.

I cannot see why auxiliary information posted by RS (regarding first ramblings of development in 2025, and discontent among developers) in articles chiefly referring to the PEGI leak and the initial announcement cannot be seen as valid when that which they were ultimately referring to was just proven veritable.

And, as it stands, these veritable sources form the body of a start-class article that will only develop with time. As the first anon said (and as Cheezknight concurred below) there is sufficient information here that had I moved all of this to mainspace on January 21st and notwithstanding previous CRYSTAL and OR concerns, a TOOSOON argument would be utterly pointless to carry out. (I do not have any comment about the anon's speculation of God sending the meteor next month.) Barnt Toust 01:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Procedural Close — The nominator's initial concerns of Original Research and CRYSTAL are moot. There is probably sufficient content that a AFD nomination opened solely on the premise of TOOSOON would fall flat or be No Consensus at least. It comes out in two months, unless God sends the meteor in February we'll have an even more detailed page very soon. ~2026-46545-8 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep the article! It's for a new up and coming game. People want to read it. Not to be tied to any other article. Weak delete request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-47562-1 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep: It absolutely passes WP:GNG now, as the reveal event provided ample information that would count as WP:SIGCOV. OceanHok (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lola Clementine, The boss 1904, and Cheezknight: pinging other major article collaborators for their input on this deletion discussion, to hopefully help facilitate a consensus on this before the game comes out. Barnt Toust 18:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep now that the game has been officially announced and the article has more content. I do agree with previous contributors that the article should have remained in draftspace until after the reveal on Jan 20, which would have likely avoided this AFD nom in the first place, but you are now aware of this for the future so I personally see no issue. Thanks for pinging me. Cheezknight (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep the article could use some refinements and expansion, but I believe it now passes start-class criteria. No reason to delete it when the game comes out in ~2 months. The boss 1904 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect is also a valid option which would fully encompass all info until the release date. Nobody said anything about deleting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad for wording like so in my ping. That which zxcvbnm suggested actually was what i did for the time between just after the start of this RfD and until the announcement on the 20th (I hate dealing with page moving since I don't care for the permissions). Still maintain that as we stand now, the article fulfills the standard of start-class criteria and will only continue to grow promptly. Barnt Toust 18:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep The page currently meets GNG and has a release date, eliminating any WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns. I can think of no reason to delete it at this point. MightyRanger (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Crafterstar (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Civil registration. (non-admin closure) Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 21:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Civil registration and vital statistics

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

The article was proposed for merger at the talk page, but there is no relevant mergeable content that is quality enough to merge, and redirect is not possible due to WP:XY. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

A copy of this talk page has been preserved at the talk page of this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Talk:Civil registration and vital statistics § Proposed merge of Vital statistics (government records) with Civil registration and vital statistics FaviFake (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

If civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) is similar enough that a separate article is not useful, there should be at least a redirect. Unlike the examples at WP:XY, this is a topic that contains "and" in its name, similar to "health and safety", and if there is nothing to merge then the proposed target Civil registration must already have the information a reader would be looking for (and if not then it should be merged as proposed). Peter James (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to !vote after i closed my duplicate nomination: I don't care whether it is deleted or BLAR'ed, I don't prefer one or the other but I don't think it should be kept. FaviFake (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt to reach minimum participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Civil registration. Not sure what to do here. Before 2020, the article was junk. Now it has sources that suggest it is a valid article, but it looks all LLM. That would suggest delete, but it was created before that and the sources again seem to associate the terms. In the end, I guess a redirect is similar to the intended merge. Civil registration fits this better than vital statistics. And this way, it can always be remade later with the history and sources preserved. ← Metallurgist (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Civil registration, per Metallurgist. Sal2100 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested, with my usual caution to merge all sources as external links. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Is and has always been terrible, so nothing we should WP:PRESERVE. Geschichte (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Civil registration. I think it is a useful redirect. I'm curious as how such a crap article got onto mainspace. Geez, its never really since 2018 scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 04:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Nairobi Bachelor

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

Without reliable sources, this dating show fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete: I reviewed during new page review and did not see any evidence of passing WP:GNG or any other relevant guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I googled and it does look like a rather popular show in Kenya. I admnit though source wise not sure what to add to bolster the page can IMDB be used? Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
No, IMDB is not considered reliable because it is crowd-sourced. I know it seems to be the most complete source for films and shows, but that's the rule. You'll need to find other sources. Lamona (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - poorly sourced; the unreliable citations are not enough for a BLP-implicated article. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

GTrang, did you do a WP:BEFORE? There're sources covering its launch , but nothing else. Also, sources don't need to be added to the article for it to survive, notability is relative to all available sources outside of wikipedia Kowal2701 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to have promotional puffery in media, but not anything qualifying as significant under WP:GNG; including the trivial promotional stuff in articles found by Kowal2701.4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Steamexfire

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

This seems like a fork of Gorniczy Agregat Gasniczy. Should it be merged into it? They're both about modified jet engines used to put out a coal seam fire by producing inert gas. There are also major consistency/sourcing quality issues. The Steamexfire output is said to be mostly nitrogen (at ~25m³/sec) and also mostly steam (also at ~25m³/sec). Obviously, can't both be true. RememberOrwell (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This does not meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete – This subject does not seem notable and does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I agree. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Cequens

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

With the sources being self-published or unreliable, this company fails WP:NCORP. GTrang (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Artificial intelligence, Software, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete spend much time, but I don't find NCORP eligible sources or not trivial coverage. Imtisig (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Lucy Bowen McCauley

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

Without significant coverage, this person fails WP:NBIO. GTrang (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep, per sources already present in the article, e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2004/11/05/bowen-mccauley-dances-its-way-into-new-territory/67392241-8e29-4923-826d-0381f4e4910c/. pburka (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep, per internet search on "Bowen McCauley" which returns hundreds of references to reputable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjoffutt (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Googling her name and tabbing over the "news" section shows an abundance of coverage in RSs. Her and her dance studio were apparently highly regarded. Yep, she's notable. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The various Washington Post articles are solid, I pull up several references to performances at the Kennedy Center (or whatever Trump calls it now), implying notability; they wouldn't let just anyone perform there. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep She has been profiled by multiple strong secondary sources including the Washington Post. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep as per above, but it could use a good copy editing. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep - per coverage in multiple independent-RS. Subject passes WP:GNG. Retro music11 (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep so much WP:SIGCOV in RS'es. Easily passes GNG. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 06:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment. This is heading for a "snow keep", but has no less than ~~four~~ five cleanup tags. Important to sort those out in a WP:BLP, if not it should actually be draftified and not kept in mainspace. Geschichte (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Can you point to a guideline or policy which supports draftifying pages with cleanup tags? IMO draftifying is just deletion via a backdoor. pburka (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

DUPR

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-existance refs. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 23:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Technology, Software, Florida, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete per reasons above fails WP:NCORP Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: No coverage outside of sports blogs/sites. This does not pass the audience requirement for corporations. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Draftified. While there are concerns as to whether draftification will help the situation, there is no harm in letting the creator work on it more. I will move protect it to enforce AfC, noting though it was not the creator who moved it. Star Mississippi 04:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Berthe, Duchess of Rohan

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

Declined at draft but moved to main space, fails WP:GNG nothing to suggest any notability Theroadislong (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Will accept WP:HEY, and, if pinged, will reassess my !vote accordingly. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies, but I can see no value in returning it to draft if it cannot be improved to show the notability which is absent as presented here. WP:BIO and WP:GNG failure 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate if my article was somehow accepted and created, but please don't delete it, I would like to continue on working on it :( Landonwantstoknowthat (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I can help Someone667 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

How can I fix my article? Landonwantstoknowthat (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redraftify. Note that Someone667 (not the original author) moved the draft to mainspace. pburka (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
because there are now reliable sources for this article Someone667 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: No evidence of notability. Also no point in draftifying, because the author already stated that better sources do not exist. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: There are evidences of notability. Also no point in draftifying, because there are about 7 reliable sources for this article. Someone667 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
@Someone667 The sources cited merely prove that this person existed, they do not at this time suggest notability.

Furthermore, you are not an AfC reviewer. It was inappropriate for you to unilaterally decide to move this article to mainspace after it was declined by an AfC reviewer, since what you essentially did was 're-review' an AfC article but without actually having the required privilege.

In future, it may be appropriate for you to add a comment to a draft like this saying something like "This decline should be reconsidered as I believe the sources now evidence notability," but you should not boldly move an article to mainspace which has been declined by a reviewer. Declined articles should be resubmitted and rereviewed properly. Athanelar (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I see, thanks for telling me, I have moved it back to draft space. Someone667 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy close & draftify The draft author is not the one who unilaterally moved the article and they intend to continue working on the article as a draft. I think this AfD should be closed and we should leave the actual draft author to keep working on it. Athanelar (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ATD to Louis Victor Meriadec de Rohan-Guéméné (her husband) where she is already included (and add the portrait). Ingratis (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Draftify the original creator of the page stated that they want to continue working on it, and it wasn’t accepted by an AFC reviewer (both me and DoubleGrazing declined it yet it was moved in a wrong fashion), @Someone667 shouldn’t have accepted a draft when they aren’t an AFC reviewer. I think the original creator should continue to work on the page and use reliable sources. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment RE draftifying: the author said on my talk page "There is no sources that have significant coverage of her, only small pages and records. I want my draft to be accepted but I don’t see how it’s possible if theres not significant pages and sources that talk about her." This being the case, what is to be gained by sending this back to drafts? That might make sense if this person was imminently expected to do something noteworthy, but given that she's been dead for nearly two centuries I think that's rather unlikely. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
redraftify per Pburka, if that's what the creator wants. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
redraftify, obviously. This is only at AfD because Someone667, who had no connection with the article, and didn't edit it, moved it to mainspace while it was still actively in the AfC process. Landonwhatstoknowthat should have been given the chance to read DoubleGrazing's comments and address the issues. If they now don't wish to, then the article will disappear from draftspace in due course, so there is no need to delete at this point. We absolutely should not allow one person's inappropriate actions to derail a perfectly functional normal procedure. Elemimele (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
sorry my mistake I have reversed it. Someone667 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Easy draftify. Even if it doesnt pass muster, it can be deleted later from there. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment User:Someone667 has now disruptively moved the article back to draft before closure of this discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Isn't this what you all wanted? Someone667 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
@Someone667, a move to draftspace during a deletion discussion should generally be avoided; it could be seen as preempting the formal close, and it also can create technical issues for semi-automated closing scripts. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I do not understand, I am getting blamed for mistakenly moving it to main space and now I am getting blamed for moving it back? This seems very ambiguous. Someone667 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
@Someone667: It's okay to make mistakes (disruptive doesn't mean you've acted intentionally). I've made the same deletion mistake. The important thing is learning for next time. Basically, as long as the deletion discussion is active, it's best not to make big changes like moving or renaming the page, even if everyone agrees that's what should happen. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Alright thanks for telling me and Ill keep that in mind in the future.

Cheers, Someone667 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Draftify per the recommendations above. I really like the portrait and I don't think there is any reason to not have a page about her here. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Draftify per all the above. The subject may be notable, and that seems to be the consensus here, so there is no real harm in waiting another couple months to see if this article bears fruit outside its current form. Lynch 44 23:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Draftify. Otherwise, it should be Redirect to Louis Victor Meriadec de Rohan-Guéméné or Sychrov Castle, with a possible selective merge. It was not ready for main space, and only the last citation appears to be reliable. Even by my very own generous standards, she's not notable, but the creator wasn't given a fair chance to look for other (offline?) sources. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Draftify. No harm letting this continue to incubate in draft space. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 22:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Immanuel Henry

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

This Article's references are made up almost entirely of self published sources (Spotify and Apple Sites) and other Wikipedia articles, fails WP:GNG Profounder User (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Profounder User (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
He is a famous Christian singer in kerala. So ig he should be on wikipedia. Search for his songs in Youtube Itsmepekky (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
@Itsmepekky, hey. Just a heads up...telling people to 'search YouTube' isn't usually accepted as a reason to keep a page. YouTube views just show popularity, but they don't count as reliable sources here. Since you mentioned he is big in Kerala, can you find an article about him in papers like Malayala Manorama or The Hindu? We need to see a journalist writing about him. If you can paste a link like that, it would help save the article. Sisigegg (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sources are just streaming links (Spotify, Apple Music) and circular references. No significant coverage in independent sources. Being a runner-up isn't enough for a standalone article. Sisigegg (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I have been unable to find any reliable sources about the subject or his music, much less anything that might come close to significant coverage. I did find one article but it appears to be about another person, with the same name (the article mentions the person being 73 at the time).
Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 05:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete; Google search finds only this which contains a passing mention and provides no in-depth or significant coverage. Fails basic GNG. ~2026-47049-6 (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV as well AlphaCore talk 14:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - completely unsourced; zero citations is unacceptable for a BLP. Poorly sourced articles are being used as an excuse to take away our charitable status. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The game came out while we were chatting. (non-admin closure) Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 21:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Highguard

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

Basically WP:TOOSOON, almost no information exists on it. The only news is no news. While scheduled for release in less than a week, odds are it will miss that release because it would be very odd for it to be shadowdropped with zero marketing. Nevertheless, it clearly violates current rules for an article. If the AfD is still open on the 26th and it really does get released, I am fine with draftification until it can be improved sufficiently to be article ready. Otherwise, it should probably be deleted until later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: The Forbes articles are contributor pieces, but the author seems to be a notable critic. It's still too early though, give this a few months to see if it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I imagine this is what List of video games in development is for, right? IgelRM (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

~~I think this should be a Redirect to its entry in 2026 in video games until we know, quite frankly, anything substantial about it.~~ ScalarFactor (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as this AfD has outlasted the wait until release. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The game is about to release in a week. Its reveal already received SIGCOV from the press and we alreaady have some basic info about gameplay. It will continue to receive more SIGCOV when it releases. OceanHok (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
These are not SIGCOV, just speculation. Pure and unadulterated high grade speculation given that the devs have been silent. I will note that WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The first two are rather opinion pieces; not terrible but not certainly sufficient. The third is really routine coverage and doesn't add notability. IgelRM (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
There is nothing speculative about the press reporting that the game's reveal had been lackluster? I don't get the rush to delete this. It will get even more SIGCOV whether it makes the release date or not. If it does release, there's going to be reviews and gameplay details. If it doesn't, there will be SIGCOV about it NOT making that release date as well. OceanHok (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm not following the "speculation" argument either. The problem with speculation is when it comes from editors, not when it consumes to reliable source coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
It is when there is insufficient information to fill out an article. It would come down to "so and so thought that [speculative gameplay] may be good". The editors would have no choice but to use speculation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
What part(s) are you referring to exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
I can only assume you haven't given any examples because no part of the article actually does this. Regardless, it releases today, so I imagine there will be previews and reviews releasing any time now, rendering this part of the argument moot. I cannot imagine there isn't going to be enough sourcing to meet the GNG by the time this AFD closes, but I'll wait until there's actual evident to link to before giving a formal !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What if we remove the speculation and don’t delete the article? The game is releasing today, and I think the article can be improved over time. Ryan York (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep: The article can be improved over time. Ryan York (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: a little thin at present but likely to attract significant coverage in the very near future. . .Mean as custard (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Here's a detailed IGN source - https://www.ign.com/articles/can-we-stop-dunking-on-highguard-before-its-even-out-please - between that and the already mentioned GamesRadar - https://www.gamesradar.com/games/fps/highguard-guide/ - and we've already cleared the lowest bar of what the GNG requires. And its only up from here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Release was not a bluff. Game is out. Reception is imminent. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: It has a plethora of other RS sources that have all dropped today, on top of what Sergecross just cited. IGN has a full review-in-progress that released today (), The Escapist has a first impressions article (), GameSpot also has a first impressions note out (), and Kotaku has an impressively long feature as well (). I think I might have been more neutral a week ago, but it's clearly notable now. Nomader (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Game's out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-57570-2 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as the page got speedied as a creation of a blocked user shortly after I completed the nomination. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

List of Craig Kellman Filmography

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

Content fork with no obvious need for it. We already have a biographical article about Craig Kellman, which already has a filmography list in it and is not long enough to need his filmography chunked out to a separate article -- and even if it did need that, this wouldn't be its correct title, so it would still need to be moved to a more appropriate and WP:NC-compliant title. The base BLP really only has a stub's worth of prose content in it, so it just isn't anywhere near long enough that the filmography table would need to be its own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Lists, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to My Machine. (non-admin closure) Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 21:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

My Machine (song)

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:NSONG / WP:GNG. Suggest redirecting to the album.4meter4 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to My Machine: per nom. Red Shell Momentum 21:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to My Machine – Per above. Svartner (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 16:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to My Machine Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Seshadri Rao Gudlavalleru Engineering College

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

This page to me does not meet notability to pass WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. The page also lacks reliable sources and/or citations to pass WP:RS Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This school does not meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

SMVM Polytechnic, Tanuku

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

I couldn’t find much historical notability for this institution to establish WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. This page also fails WP:RS with zero citations except social media Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete notable article means it needs to have multiple secondary sources (excluding works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it) in any language per WP:GNG Chongkian (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete – Fails in WP:NSCHOOL. Svartner (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 22:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Kevin Kantor

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

Subject doesn't pass NActor with regional theater credits, sourced from largely routine coverage and interviews with the subject. The most notable coverage is of a single poem/youtube video and much of that is interviews, which I don't believe passes NAuthor or adds up to significant coverage. Searches aren't turning up additional reliable sources. BrechtBro (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Authors. BrechtBro (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: The Independent is a RS, but I'm not sure seeing someone that may have done nasty things to you on facebook is notable. Standing be side Gaga on stage isn't notable. I don't see much otherwise for sourcing. I mean, yes, this person exists, but just not rising to notability that we would consider having an article about them. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
This, but it's very minimal coverage . Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
The American Theatre piece is just their bio and an interview. I think the Arizona Republic piece is the most substantial, but it's mostly an interview about the play (worth adding to the article on the play) and covering the same stuff about the poem. BrechtBro (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Theatre, Arizona, California, Colorado, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I cannot find enough sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I'm a bit torn on this one. There are three "reasonable" sources: the Independent, tucson.com, and AZCentral. That said, the accomplishments indicated in those don't meet any of the CREATIVE criteria. What the articles cover is: "won two awards at the 2015 College Unions Poetry Slam Invitational with his poem, ‘people you may know’" (Independent), which can't be considered "a major award"; he acted in a play at the Arizona Theatre Company; he acted in another Tucson play and worked with the playwright to hone the character. None rise to creative notability. Lamona (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete per Lamona. Based solely upon the numbers of reliable sources, they pass. However, I don't see anything that is actually notable - an award, a major play, etc. They seem to be sort-of notable for their being. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I think they are a bit-part actor. No real reviews. Story about seeing rapist is RS (though it was 2 refs) but don't see much else. AZCentral appears to be an interview. Not muc here at all. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and WP:SALT. Owen× ☎ 22:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Vaidam health

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are all routine, mentions, or churnalism (some fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. First deletion under Vaidam Health in 2024. Possibly recreated after as it shows draftified in June 2025 with page protection added to the title. This goes back to Vaidam which has a page title protection from 2017. OP just declared PAID after being warned and then after which created this page under the variation title direct in the mainspace despite two declines of Draft:Vaidam Health. In addition to the notability concerns, the bludgeoning from UPE (now declared) should allow for yet another page title to be protected. CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Source 3 is the only RS, and it only mentions this Corp. This has been deleted and recreated three times now, with page protection. Salt again. UPE is also in issue. I would speedy this, but we need some sort of protection so it doesn't get re-created a 4th time, and an AfD as a log of the deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Great call. I was going to request speedy but figured it can be G4 in the future since we will have a recent AfD delete result.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Retro music11 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete and SALT per nom. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 04:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Ndue Ukaj

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

Zero significant coverage located, at least in English. While searching for pages published in Albania, a few sites are found but most look to be forums or self-published sources (not by the subject). Nothing located for the Azem Shkreli award. Page has been a mess with notability issues since approximately 2011. It's been cleaned up, but still, no significant coverage located. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, Poetry, and Albania. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Polish wiki has more refs, although contents differ somewhat for awards/bio. This seems like a decent SIGCOV in English. There is also a bio at although with this kind of short bio, I would be wary about who wrote it (may not be independent). I did not do a BEFORE myself, so I am just commenting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
There's a very realistic chance that my searches weren't the most in-depth. Tase (the author of the first link you mention) has translated Ukaj's work, so I'm unsure how that impacts the reliability. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kelob2678 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You can find one article about him in Gazeta Express, or https://foreignpolicynews.org/2014/05/06/ndue-ukaj-visionary-writer-kosovo/or https://www.alba.nu/sidor/21570 (indicating one of his collections Godo kommer inte received the award for the best poetry book in Kosovo in 2011) or https://telegrafi.com/en/godo-does-not-come-apart-i-ukajt%2C-the-book-is-published-in-three-languages/ or https://www.opulens.se/prosa-poesi/littestraden-diktsvit-av-ndue-ukaj/ Keep. ~2026-41329-2 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The sources presented by 2026-41329-2 and Piotrus appear to meet WP:GNG when viewed together.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Cartoonito. History is preserved should someone want to enact a merge Star Mississippi 04:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Cartoonito (Spain)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sourced by 123movies and YouTube. Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
There are some reasonably better refs to justify the basic facts, like and , but a TV channel that existed for two years doesn't need its own article. Redirect to Cartoonito and consider salting to prevent kidvid hoaxers from undoing this nomination. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 03:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep – subject looks notable and has enough news coverage such as Kidscreen, Señal News, Bebés y Más, and Noticias de Navarra. Maxcreator (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kelob2678 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Cartoonito Should be noted in the main article, but this is easily absorbed into it; two years is nothing in broadcasting. Nathannah • 📮 21:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Cartoonito.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 22:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Zaffar Aslam

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

Seemingly non-notable solider. Not involved in any engagements or assigned to any significant posts. All sources are routine coverage or mere passing mentions. –DMartin (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/684780			Entry in list	✘ No
https://www.app.com.pk/domestic/air-vice-marshal-zafar-aslam-meets-punjab-cm-buzdar/			Routine at best	✘ No
https://24newshd.tv/08-Sep-2022/air-vice-marshal-zafar-aslam-calls-on-punjab-igp-faisal-shahkar?version=amp			Routine at best, two sentences about a meeting taking place.	✘ No
https://pakobserver.net/igp-air-vice-marshal-discuss-matter-of-mutual-interest/			Routine at best, two sentences about a meeting taking place.	✘ No
https://www.nation.com.pk/21-Jun-2022/cm-punjab-hamza-shehbaz-sharif-meets-air-vice-marshal-zafar-aslam			Routine at best, couple sentences about a meeting taking place.	✘ No
https://www.au.edu.pk/au_error_page.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/pages/About/board_of_governers.aspx	dead link	dead link	dead link	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2536001/president-zardari-grants-military-awards-on-pakistan-day			single entry in list of hundreds of names	✘ 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Aviation. –DMartin (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep He’s vice chief of air staff and much decorated. We routinely keep similar bio articles for senior US and other military figures. Mccapra (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Holds a very senior post (second-in-command of the air force, so "not assigned to any significant posts" clearly does not apply) and meets WP:GNG. And not a soldier, incidentally. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep - 3-Star commander, 4 major medals, sufficient sources. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep Vice-chief, incase the chief gets killed. Extremely senior position in the Pakistani Air Force. Pass of WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

There will be much more coverage out there, like the Pakistani paper of record for these things. scope_creep^Talk 17:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 22:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Tabassum Habib

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

Seemingly non-notable solider. Not involved in any engagements or assigned to any significant posts. All sources are routine coverage or mere passing mentions. –DMartin (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2023/09/biografia_pakistan.pdf	publisher unclear	publisher unclear		? Unknown
https://www.geo.tv/latest/233952-four-major-generals-promoted-to-lieutenant-general-ispr			entry in list of dozens of people	✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1942906/40-army-brigadiers-promoted-rank-major-general			entry in list of dozens of people	✘ No
https://arynews.tv/pakistan-army-brigadiers-promotions			passing mention	✘ No
https://www.nation.com.pk/23-Mar-2022/president-confers-military-awards-on-armed-force-officers			Single entry in list of hundreds of names	✘ No
https://thefrontierpost.com/president-confers-military-awards-on-armed-forces-personnel/			Single entry in list of hundreds of names	✘ No
https://www.rediff.com/news/column/pak-army-chief-will-stay-till-nov-2027/20241105.htm				✔ Yes
https://defencejournal.com/2024/02/10/inspiring-pakistan-lunch-at-davos/	~ industry publication	~ transcript of speech by subject		~ Maybe
https://www.brecorder.com/news/40330715/several-officers-promoted-to-rank-of-lieutenant-general			~ Passing mention	~ Maybe
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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. –DMartin (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep if he’s not notable I don’t know who is. Mccapra (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep - current 3-Star general in line for a 4th. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep per both above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep. He got coverage in here, here, by this Magazine, here, and here. --SatnaamIN (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army. Source analysis from keep contributions is comparatively weaker with less depth than that presented by those opposed to keep, redirect as ATD. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Inayat Hussain (officer)

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

Seemingly non-notable solider. Not involved in any engagements or assigned to any significant posts. All sources are routine coverage or mere passing mentions. –DMartin (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://gbee.pk/2019/04/brigadier-inayat-hussain-from-hunza-promoted-to-the-rank-of-major-general-in-pakistan-army/	~ Routine?	~ Maybe
https://english.aaj.tv/news/330361323	passing mention, routine	✘ No
https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/pakistan-military-appoints-new-corps-commanders-for-peshawar-mangla-corps-in-pojk/	passing mention	✘ No
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2024/05/12/coas-approves-postings-after-three-major-generals-promoted-to-three-star-generals/	passing mention	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1187768-3-major-generals-promoted-to-lieutenant-general-s-rank	passing mention	✘ 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. –DMartin (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep - currently a 3-star general, possibly in line for his 4th. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
If they do get another promotion(and therefore more coverage), then we can reassess their notability. We shouldn't keep an article for someone who might later be notable per WP:CRYSTALBALL. –DMartin (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Bearian. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep per GNG . Also received Hilal-i-Imtiaz, one of the highest Pakistani awards. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army per WP:ATD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Come on guys, you all are experienced enough now to know when sources have SIGCOV and when they don't. The source analysis is spot on, and Kelob's additional refs are no better. They appear to be press release adjacent reporting or eye witness current event reporting and are therefore not WP:SECONDARY. The tone of some of the articles also appears promotional in nature and are therefore not clearly independent. I would not count any of these as WP:SIGCOV. The Hilal-i-Imtiaz is not a significant award (unlike the Nishan-e-Imtiaz which is significant, the Hilal-i-Imtiaz is given to many people) so I wouldn't count it as an ANYBIO pass. I note too that the RFC that deprecated WP:SOLDIER was clear that military rank and responsibility confers zero notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Salman Fayyaz Ghanni

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

Apart from some minor controversy, seemingly non-notable solider. Not involved in any engagements or assigned to any significant posts. All sources are routine coverage or mere passing mentions. –DMartin (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. –DMartin (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep - 3-Star general, and involved in two embarrassing incidents that made him and his superiors look bad. That's not a WP:BLP1E situation. If anything, it's a Peter principle situation. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. A corps commander isn't a "significant post"?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep per GNG. Was involved in two controversies, received Hilal-i-Imtiaz, one of the highest Pakistani awards. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Giacomo Vose

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

Among the eight sources, articles from corriere.it and iltirreno.it are full-fledged interviews. Three of them either focus on Wishew or are affiliated with Wishew. thisdaylive.com and cityandcity.it are unbylined and one is from an unknown website. Sources related to Wishew are largely routine and lack in-depth, independent coverage. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Italy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete There are a couple of possibly good sources, such as ansa.it, il tirenno, city&city. However, they all tell the same story, which sounds like the information comes from a single source. Also, given that this is a start-up I'm thinking it's TOOSOON. Oddly (or maybe not, but it seems like it to me) three of the sources are in African publications, one of which has a "click here to to get featured on our Entrepreneur Spotlight" so I think we can discount that one (technext24.com). Some of the sources are clearly about the software, not the person, and usually the person's notability can't precede that of the product. I also note that the article is by a single editor. I could agree to draftify but my impression is that it would have to linger in draft for a while because it's unlikely that clear notability will resolve soon. Lamona (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Coverage from City&City and Technext24 passes WP:BASIC, and establish GNG. The article is now rated Start-class, but I see new coverage added over time. Technext24 is a possible good source, and the publication does not carry the Sponsored tag, as verified by comparing both articles. Lastly, the subject role at Arduino is significant, and the subject is likely to meet ANYBIO. Majority of the sources used are not independent of Wishew but routines.--Afí-afeti (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Technext24 is a black-hat SEO website that charges for providing backlinks. I’m glad you noticed their Sponsored section, but there’s something you missed. In their rate card, they explicitly mention offering a Special Feature Article:
- Published with writer's author tag (not SPONSORED)
- Up to 3 in-story backlinks
And then there is Giacomo Vose’s article, which contains two backlinks in the very first paragraph. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the PDF, and I believe it is self-explanatory. According to the PDF: "Unlike Sponsored Articles, Our editorial team crafts engaging narratives that position your brand effectively. Ideal for product and app reviews." Giacomo is not a product or an app, that needs review. That what the Special Feature Article is all about according to the PDF. Am I wrong? @Jeraxmoira, because the website say's otherwise. I didn't also see 3 in-story backlinks, and here's another news on Twitter (now X.), you can also find backlinks. Does this also make the news a featured post? Afí-afeti (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Let's look into this: Forbes charges for special feature article in US & Italy, with the tag "BrandVoice | Paid Program", or RollingStone, which also charge for special feature post in the UK with the tag at the end of the article: "Rolling Stone UK publishes articles from a variety of contributors which express a wide range of viewpoints. The positions taken in these articles are not necessarily those of Rolling Stone UK". Afí-afeti (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
I leave with this, we credit the western publications, and discredit African publications. Like the Nigeria newspapers. It's a global thing, and not an African thing. Till we understand this, we wouldn't stop tagging possible good sources as "black-hat SEO website". Afí-afeti (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
"Ideal for product and app reviews" does not mean it is only for product and app reviews. Someone with your experience should be able to interpret what is written explicitly. It also states "up to 3 in-story backlinks", which does not mean there must be exactly three in-story backlinks. At this point, you should stop over-interpreting language that has a single, clear meaning.

The first backlink in the Twitter article you’ve tagged here internally redirects to their own previous coverage and the remaining backlinks simply credit the original sources of information. If you are going to equate Forbes or Rolling Stone with an unknown tech website, then nothing I say is likely to make this any clearer. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
I wouldn’t want to go back and front with this. I’m open to other editor’s options and in good faith: I would stop commenting to focus on the draft I’m working on. Afí-afeti (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Many of the sources appear to be low quality churnalism and/or paid for PR media, or are tangential to Vose. Not seeing three clearly independent and indepth sources to meet WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Mangaluru#Media. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Mangalore Today

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. No significant independent in-depth coverage from reliable sources other than the primary website itself. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article with a single sentence/claim. Out of the 2 sources cited - Both are irrelevant, misleading the readers into believing that sources exist. Retro music11 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Entertainment, Asia, and India. Retro music11 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect and merge into Mangaluru#Media.--~2026-41329-2 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Or Keep per newly added sources and content. See page. Probably meets Wikipedia:ORGCRIT. Deletion does not seem necessary. ~2026-41329-2 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Your vote is not based on tangible evidence.

Source analysis for the newly added ones:

Source 1) The award was conferred to the person V U George, and Not the publication.

Source 2) Again, this source is about The person V U George and not his publication.

Source 3) This source does NOT confirm that the publication is Notable. It only confirms that it exists.

Notability has got nothing to do with existence. In other words, just because something exists it is not notable.

The subject in this article still fails WP:GNG AND WP:NMEDIA. With trivial mentions and no significant coverage, it fails WP:SIGCOV as well, even with those three newly added sources that you're referring to. Retro music11 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
The award was conferred to the chief editor and owner of the magazine for its creation. It is clearly stated in the source. These are not trivial mentions, your ”source analysis” leaves much to be desired. Also, wp:nmedia is an ESSAY. You can’t ”fail” an essay, but never mind. My vote is based on tangible evidence, yes, and on established policies and guidelines, whether you like it or not. I indeed also suggest a Wikipedia:ATD-R in the first place. Have a great day. ~2026-41329-2 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi again, I'm not disputing your 'Redirect' course of action.

Let me clarify, my comment is with regards to your second course of action which says 'Keep'. And it also states that the subject probably meets WP:ORGCRIT. Because you stated Keep, I ask you - "Why do you think it meets WP:ORGCRIT." My comment follows your recommended course of action and its not the other way round.

As in the source, an award was conferred to the chief editor, but this Wikipedia article is not about the chief editor. In other words, the chief editor isn't the subject of this AFD discussion. The [[WP:GNG]] in my nomination pertains to the publication, which doesn't meet notability.

Since, you've still not justified why you think the subject meets WP:ORGCRIT, I say, your Vote is not based on tangible evidence.

You too, have a great day! Retro music11 (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41329-2 Also, why do you think that it meets WP:ORGCRIT? Retro music11 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Mangaluru#Media. I think this doesn't pass GNG, but there is an encyclopedic material that should be covered somewhere. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Mangaluru#Media per WP:ATD. There's not enough independent significant coverage in sourcing to warrant a standalone page.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Wolfenstein as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Wolfenstein III

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. This game is not officially announced yet and everything about it is just rumors or supposed leaks. There is nothing about this game that is official. The article does claim that "In early January 2026, the game was confirmed by MachineGames to be in development", but the sources cited to this statement clearly state that it's sources besides MachineGames/Bethesda reporting that the game is in development. But this is not official confirmation.

And while it may be possible in rare circumstances for an unreleased or unannounced game to be notable (Grand Theft Auto VI after the 2022 leaks, for instance), this is not one of those cases. There is not enough info about the game to boot to make this notable. I'd normally say redirect to somewhere, like the Wolfenstein series article, but that would imply we put information about this there when nothing is official. I say delete outright. λ NegativeMP1 17:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 17:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Coverage is just rumors as stated. As wiki is supposed to be a lagging indicator of notability this article should be deleted (WP:CRYSTALBALL). It's vaporware until shown to be otherwise.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Definitely TOOSOON. As an ATD, I would be okay draftifying this until it gets officially announced. Gommeh 📖 🎮 19:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete Attempted future prediction, unfit for Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTAL. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete Per above, especially given how games development has been lately this is way too soon to do an article on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Wolfenstein. Obviously not enough for a standalone, but I think there's room for a "Future" section on the series page with Gustafsson's quote about intending the reboot as a trilogy, and MAYBE msomething about the development reports cited to the two or three most credible sources provided. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Wolfenstein. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Wolfenstein per nom. OceanHok (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Wolfenstein as a plausible search target. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Wolfenstein: This article is extremely premature, and includes very early reports regarding development. This could easily be covered in a sentence at the main series article. Redirect. 11WB (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Dan Leek

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

Non notable professional rugby player. Page flagged since 2016. WP:BEFORE showing nothing that meets the notability threshold. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and England. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 16:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This individual does not meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - poorly sourced; two possibly unreliable citations are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Böhse Onkelz discography. (non-admin closure) UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 11:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Tour 2000

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

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:NALBUM; barely anything to report. Red Shell Momentum 21:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. Red Shell Momentum 21:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
There's a review by Rock Hard: . --Mika1h (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect- to Böhse Onkelz discography as an ATD, not seeing not enough SIGCOV to suggest standalone notability at least from english sites.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoconutOctopus talk 12:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 16:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Böhse Onkelz discography as an WP:ATD, one review is not enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Itä-Häme

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

The article is essentially unsourced. According to non-RS Häme-wiki, the term Itä-Häme predates the term Päijät-Häme and has some overlap with it, but is essentially informal. There is also the association Itä-Hämeen liitto which served as a collaborative forum for the municipalities listed in this article. There was some proposal to develop it into a closer collaboration, but it seems to have failed. Due to this failure, "Itä-Häme" remains a rather ephemeral concept, and I could not find reliable sources discussing it in depth. I suggest deleting this article and moving the newspaper to the base name, with a hatnote to Heinola sub-region (formerly known as Itä-Häme sub-region, but with a different composition than Itä-Hämeen liitto). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 16:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

To summarize the above: fails WP:GNG. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. When I searched for the term in Google Books, it looked like the hits were related to the newspaper. If there is any encyclopedic information about the region, it can be easily included in an article about Häme. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I cannot find any secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to The Wailers Band#Live albums. (non-admin closure) Kelob2678 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

My Friends (album)

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to The Wailers Band#Live albums as an alternative. Nighfidelity (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to The Wailers Band#Live albums – As suitable WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 22:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Turkistan (1718)

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

Hello, I am nominating this article for deletion on the grounds of hoaxing. The article is titled "Battle of Turkestan (1718)," yet the events described are merely a few skirmishes near various rivers located far from the city of Turkestan itself. Furthermore, the article claims that the Dzungars carried out a massacre in Turkestan.

However, the first cited source (Kadyrbaev, page 9) makes no mention of any massacre in the city; he states that the Kalmyks fought Kazakhs near the Bugun, Arys, and Chayan rivers. In reality, this was nothing more than a minor raid—an incursion in response to an unsuccessful Kazakh campaign earlier in 1717. We have no record of the course of a "battle" or any specific details.

The second source cited for the "massacre" also fails to confirm these events; moreover, it is simply a collection of primary documents.

I would also like to point out that the citations do not include specific page numbers, which strongly suggests a deliberate hoax. Онеми (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This nomination had not been correctly formatted with {{subst:afd2}}; I have repaired this. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Kazakhstan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

NOppose

Hello, creator of the page here. For your first argument, Galiev and Vecihi sefa states ot as a battle, not as a minor skirmish. And on the same citation of Galoev, it was stated that the Dzungars "chopped down" the Kazakhs, indicating a heavy casualty and a massacre which is supported by another citation. Also this being a hoax isn't true, as most of the sources do have their correct pages and even if they weren't, you should have instead research or fact-check the citation id it's reliable or verifiable which you failed to do so. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Galiev claims that there were several battles. Moreover, Galiev first writes that they "slashed the Kazakh horde," and later that the Kazakhs gathered an army of 30,000; we do not know the initial losses, he will not present them. However, everything in your article is inverted: you presented the whole picture as if the Dzungars were slashing a 30,000-strong Kazakh army. These are nothing more than minor events, and there is no point in writing articles about all of this. Furthermore, these were skirmishes in different locations far from the city of Turkestan itself, which you combined into a single battle. Additionally, Terentyev's work is the primary source, whereas Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. Онеми (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

On the page 23, the page citation uses for the article states them, and even if i did make a mistake on the casualty, you could have fixed it by adding a note instead of creating a redundant nomination over something thatcan be improved. And your source claims it to be battles while you claim it was a skirmish, which is only about a minor confrontation between TWO small armies, in which that event was a battle. Also how come do you ignore the secondary sources such as Adle Chahrayar, Kadyrbaev, Galiev, Dr Vecihi Sefa and more? - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Logging off at this time, I'll respond to the replies in the morning. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Онеми ....TurkIstan, not TurkEstan..... ~2026-41329-2 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Then you could have asked me for permission to move the page, not create a completely useless Nomination. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

...?...i am just indicating a typo in the nomination.... ~2026-41329-2 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Pardon me, i meant to ping @Онеми. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

HorseBro the hemionus, considering your previous issues with source misrepresentation and keeping WP:NONENG in mind, could you please provide relevant quotes from the sources on the talk page? Please ping me when this is done.

For the moment, since the only source I can access (Adle 2003) is misrepresented in the article, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

No, i didn't misrepresent the Barefooted flight nor Adle's 98th page. It does talk about the Barefooted flight as teh Aqtaban shubryndy, which is the Kazakh naming for the Flight and Great Calamity has the same meaning. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I can see when you add another citation, you know? Let's look at the sources you posted on talk. Not good so far, will continue later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:AirshipJungleman29
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Kadyrbaev, A. Sh. К ИСТОРИИ ВЗАИМООТНОШЕНИЙ КАЛМЫКОВ ПОВОЛЖЬЯ И ОЙРАТОВ ДЖУНГАРИИ С НОГАЙЦАМИ, ТУРКМЕНАМИ И КАЗАХАМИ В XVII–XVIII вв [On the History of Relationships Between the Volga Kalmyks and the Dzungarian Oirats with the Nogais, Turkmens, and Kazakhs in the 17th–18th Centuries]			One sentence is not significant coverage.	✘ No
Казахско-русские отношения в XVI–XVIII веках: Сборник документов и материалов [Kazakh-Russian Relations in the 16th–18th Centuries: A Collection of Documents and Materials]		A collection of WP:PRIMARY sources does not establish notability.		✘ No
Усиление борьбы казахского народа против Джунгарской агрессии в начале XVIII века. [Strengthening the struggle of the Kazakh people against the Dzungarian aggression at the beginning of the 18th century]	~ Seems to be a nationalist Kazakh work published by an offshoot of the Kazakh government		Two halves of sentences are not significant coverage	✘ No
Saparaliev, D. (1995). ВЗАИМООТНОШЕНИЯ КЫРГЫЗСКОГО НАРОДА С РУССКИМ И СОСЕДНИМИ НАРОДАМИ B XVIII в. [Relations between the Kyrgyz people and the Russian and neighboring peoples in the 18th century]			~ Two sentences, if you look generously.	~ Maybe
Кушкумбаев, А. К. (2001). Военное дело казахов в XVII–XVIII веках [Military Affairs of the Kazakhs in the 17th–18th Centuries]			No coverage of events in 1718	✘ No
Моисеев, В.А; Сулейменов, Р.Б. (1988). Из истории Казахстана XVIII века (о внешней и внутренней политике Аблая) [From the history of Kazakhstan in the 18th century (on the foreign and domestic policies of Ablai).]			No coverage of events in 1718	✘ No
Terentiev, M.A. (1875). Россия и Англия в Средней Азии [Russia and England in Central Asia]		Per WP:AGEMATTERS, an 1875 source is not reliable enough to use in notability discussions.		✘ No
Fuat, Dr. Vecihi Sefa (2018). 18. VE 19. YÜZYILLARDA KAZAK TÜRKLERİ RUS İŞGALİ VE ULUSAL BAĞIMSIZLIK MÜCADELESİ [“18th and 19th Centuries Kazakh Turks” “Russian Occupation and the National Independence Struggle”]			Half a sentence (see talk), not SIGCOV	✘ No
Moiseev, V. A. (1991). The Dzungar Khanate and the Kazakhs (17th–18th Centuries) [The Dzungar Khanate and the Kazakhs (17th–18th Centuries)]			As per talk, does not discuss article subject.	✘ No
Adle, Chahryar (2003). History of Civilizations of Central Asia				✘ 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

As you can see HorseBro the hemionus, the article is an almost-total failure in meeting WP:GNG; only one source is anywhere close to providing notability, and even that is borderline. To reaffirm my original !vote, for the closer, I recommend deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete I checked the Galiev, Vecihi, and Saparaliev references and agree with their assessment by AirshipJungleman29. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Ali Dahlan Nasution

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

The sources in the article do not support a claim to notability for this Indonesia dentist and academic. They are all primary sources and/or trivial mentions (the final source does not even mention him); there is no WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Being a dean of a faculty is not a claim to notability under WP:NACADEMIC, and my BEFORE search turns up no further evidence of meeting any notability standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Health and fitness, and Indonesia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I cannot find anything that defies notability. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete Just a military dentist. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete There is not any evidence of notability through sources. Gedaali (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Patna Traffic Police

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

This is an unnecessary content fork (WP:CFORK) of Patna Police. The current article is very short and its content can be included in the parent article without creating any article size or context issues. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, Transportation, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
This is the kind of obviously unnecessary page that I would WP:BOLDMERGE. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete Traffic divisions are by and large unnotable for any article. I don't see a need for a redirect. Nathannah • 📮 17:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge per Reywas92. Mccapra (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:Notability Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - pretty clearly not notable and unimportant. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete as Patna Police already covers this. Highresheadphones (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 20:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Utazzo Holidays

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

Based on the analysis of available sources in the article and WP:BEFORE this subject does not pass WP:NCORP. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and India. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Can you mention the questionable sources Adiflixofficial (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NCORP Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete someone has legit cited Linkedin. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Dgbombay (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete Flagrant corpspam. MightyRanger (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Siwet Tomar

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

Non notable Tv personality, fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the mentioned sources are from non reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Television, India, and Delhi. Zuck28 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

~~Keep, but remove non-reliable sources. There are some reliable ones, though.WidgetKid ^{chat me} 05:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)~~

"Some reliable sources" are not enough to warrant a standalone article. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is required. Zuck28 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 15:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Poor sources and some unreliable sources such as Filmibeat and Indiaforums. Most others are Non-independent of the subject. I did not find subject's work as Indian reality television personality, model, and music video actor, that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete per deeper look at sources. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 17:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Most of the sources are unreliable and can't establish notability. Retro music11 (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

CLdN

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

This article relies entirely on primary sources, but I figured there would be coverage of the company in secondary sources. However, I only found fairly routine coverage in WP:TRADES publications, which is generally excluded for purposes of establishing notability. Perhaps unexpected, but I found no evidence this company passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I cannot find any decent secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Abdulaziz Mashi Abdullahi

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

Biography of a non-notable Nigerian civil servant not covered by WP:NPOL. Sources are routine announcements of professional appointments which are based on his official bio and many of which are not reliable sources (, ) or trivial mentions (, , , ). My BEFORE search didn't turn up any WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I cannot find any secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

PO EZRI

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

I am currently collecting Indonesian bus companies that meet a notability (WP:NCORP) to have an article on Wikipedia, on Indonesian Wikipedia. I feel that this article does not meet the notability due to the following problems:

The history of this company is not well-reviewed on independent sources, unlike recently expanded Indonesian version of PO Coyo by myself. This article relies on blogs or "official blog" of EzriTex/Ezri Group which is not reliable sources.
I also checked any magazines and newspapers documented on Monumen Pers Nasional (Arsip Media Cetak then type "Ezri" in its search box) but none found about who is Keren Indrawati, Loe Sin Tong, and their business itself.
Therefore, this relies on ayonaikbis.com which is considered as "single source". (RS?) RaFaDa20631 (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete pretty sure the bus transportation company is not notable; while some local newspapers may have covered it, I can’t find any reliable sources Imtisig (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Clash (Thai band). (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Preeti Barameeanant

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. WP:BLP with inadequate sources. Mariamnei (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Clash (Thai band) per WP:BANDMEMBER. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Clash (Thai band) - I can find nothing reliable that covers anything he has done outside of the band, under either his birth name or stage name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Clash (Thai band) Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect - which is a frequent outcome for band members, even lead singers. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Jaishankar Chigurula (Film director)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I previously moved this to draft space because it lacked reliable sources, but the author moved it back to mainspace without fixing the issues. The references are mostly database listings (BookMyShow, JioSaavn), streaming links (Amazon Prime), or self-published (YouTube). The only news source is a short promotional piece about a trailer, which isn't enough for significant coverage. This also appears to be a content fork of the article "Jai. C" which is currently up for deletion. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jai._C) Sisigegg (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sisigegg (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
not Agree with @Sisigegg: he proposing(AfD) under fails WP:NFILM remember this is nota film. this Article comes under biography. and he previously moved this to draft space with adding grammar mistakes tag i was moved it back to mainspace only affter fixing grammar any one can cheak thru 'histary' befor and after. and multiple Times Of Inda references sources are not promotional, Times Of Inda is not a paid promotional site. (JioSaavn) and (Amazon Prime) independent pirmary sources those are not self published works. those can help to verify about the content. still if you have the problem with pirmary source you can remove it adding tags, instead of proposing for Article for deletion (AfD)

this Article clearly meets WP:AUTHOR,WP:CREATIVE,WP:ARTIST. i was explained below. Writer Nagraj (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Clear WP:NDIRECTOR fail. No notable works and no WP:SIGCOV. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NDIRECTOR, only one notable movie. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
delete nothing has changed from every single spammy iteration of Jaishankar Chigurula and the slight disambugation that keeps getting added on. TURKEYDICAE🦃 20:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
that link was 12 years old. Writer Nagraj (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 05:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:AUTHOR,WP:CREATIVE,WP:ARTIST. notable significant coverage about his work link:Time Of India article i will explain you

Time Of India article title: Jaishankar Chigurula's 'Zinga' will bring a giant alien to the Telugu screens Jaishankar Chigurula’s second film ‘Zinga’ starring Sanjeev Devan, Jyothi and Sri Ram in lead roles is all set to bring the story of a giant alien to the Telugu screens soon. The film which will see cinematography by Srivaas and music by Jai.C will see Sanjeev Devan and Jyothi play the lead roles, while Sri Ram will play the giant alien Zinga with the help of prosthetics. The fantasy adventure has completed shoot, with post-production on in full swing. The trailer of ‘Zinga’ too is slated for release on May 25. the first giant movie, apart from first South Indian giant and alien movie. ((this will make him to meet WP:AUTHOR,WP:CREATIVE,WP:ARTIST says The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique will meet notable)) The film will see a giant alien come to earth from the fictional planet of Dhandoka. Why the alien comes to earth, lands in Rajasthan and what happens next forms the crux of the tale. Jaishankar Chirugula had made his debut with ‘21’ in 2016 which saw a female ghost kill everyone who befriended her via her still-active Facebook account. It remains to be seen if ‘Zinga’ will drum up enough hype and how the film will fare on-screen. ((in this same article journalist also coverd about his debut film 21 with plot story it can be a verifiable source for 21))

Writer Nagraj (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

More sources needed to establish 1.) that this is the first giant alien movie from South India and, more importantly, 2. why that matters. Also, a single short article about a movie in TOI does not pass WP:GNG for a director. I can't fathom why creating a giant alien movie in 2021 is originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique for passing WP:CREATIVE. At this point, I can't tell if the author is incapable of reading and understanding the policies or is willfully disregarding their meaning in order to push an agenda - maybe WP:PROMOTION? Either way, I'm tired and looking forward to these discussions and articles going away soon. </end engagement> <again.> WidgetKid ^{chat me} 15:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

note to the closing administrator i nowhere tryed or push an agenda its false allegations. i just explained how subject meets WP:CREATIVE,WP:ARTIST,WP:AUTHOR. Writer Nagraj (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete - poorly sourced; those unreliable sources are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
added multiple new sources

Telugu Jaishankar Chigurula Biography

Jaishankar Chigurula biography Jaishankar Chigurula, born 10 June 1994 in Hyderabad, Telangana, is a South Indian film director/screenwriter. He predominantly worked in the Telugu film industry and made his debut with the film called 21. It released in July of 2016. Jaishankar was born to Lakshmi Chigurula and Mallaiah Chigurula in Secunderabad. He attended the Govt Boys High School, Secunderabad, Telangana. Chigurula dreamt of becoming a filmmaker since his school days. He attended the R.K. Junior college but quit studies to pursue his dream career in filmmaking in 2009. although that turned out to be a failure, he did not give up. Chigurula learned 3D Animation, VFX & Editing, worked on a few short films, and in 2014 he decided to make a movie (21) on his own. He started working on the project of '21' in March of 2014, under the new production company Owl Motion Pitchers, and had a very micro-budget of two lakhs INR. The film was later released on 29 July 2016. His second film 'Zinga' was released in 2019. It had the star cast of Sanjeev Devan, Jyothi, and Sri Ram in lead roles to bring the story of a giant alien to the Telugu film screens.

Writer Nagraj (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

21 Movie-Meview Writer Nagraj (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

and added more sources. Writer Nagraj (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Review of changes since 1/22:

Making of Zinga = primary source
nettv4u.com = unreliable, promotional source
moviebuff.com = no WP:SIGCOV of film maker, just shows that the movie exists
primevideo.com = no WP:SIGCOV of film maker, just shows that the movie exists
nettv4u.com = no WP:SIGCOV of film maker, just shows that the movie exists. FWIW, it discusses that the director could have done a better job.
jiosaavn.com = no WP:SIGCOV of film maker, just shows that the soundtrack for the movie exists
Robo J3 crossing 6.8 million views on YouTube = not WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:NYOUTUBE: A frequent argument put forward for keeping the article is that a subject is notable because of their number of YouTube subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed. Consensus however is that this is an insufficient basis by which to establish notability. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 21:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

note to the closing administrator i nowhere said or talked anything about YouTube subscribers, social media fame. he is linking with unrelated tags like WP:NYOUTUBE wich indicates intentional. Writer Nagraj (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Widgetkid this user intentionally trying to mislead the discussion with false Reviews and not even he aceepting TOI article as a reliable source.
Making of Zinga = primary source vs video was publeshed by a notable music labale it is not self publeshed work in the video filmmakar talking about film and making experience about the film its comes under interview wich makesh this reliable source. = WP:SIGCOV.
nettv4u.com Jaishankar Chigurula biography = unreliable, promotional source vs nettv4u.com is not a blog or not a sefl publesed. it is a major telugu movie Reviews website. shared articale abou filmmaker with significant coverage. will meet WP:SIGCOV
moviebuff.com vs yes i accept it as a primary source
primevideo.com film maker, just shows that the movie exists. vs not self publesed it can help to verify cast and crow and release date of the film.
nettv4u.com = of film maker, just shows that the movie exists. FWIW, it discusses that the director could have done a better job. vs nowhere said he did better a job or grate job. and that link not talking abou film maker. its a significant movie review wich meets WP:SIGCOV. Telugu 21 Movie Full Review

21 Telugu Movie Review 21 is the latest horror movie directed by Jaishankar Chirugula. It is produced by Bodapatla Yadagiri. Plot: Venkat lives with his family in the village and is jobless. He is the only support of his family for feeding them and is solely responsible for their care. He tries hard to get a job but does not succeed. Frustrated by this, he visits his friend and tells him his situation. His friend tells him to stop looking for a job and join him in carrying out illegal works. At first, Venkat hesitates, but after completing his first job, he gets a decent amount of money, and he enjoys being in the gang. He kills a woman while doing one of his job whose soul isn't in peace and starts haunting Venkat. The movie revolves around the ghost in search of revenge. Will Rehman be killed? Will he be forgiven for his act? To know all these, go and watch the movie. Analysis: The movie is very impressive and is successful in scaring the audience. The horror sequences are scary and are capable of increasing your heartbeat. It is a treat for the lovers of the horror genre. The movie has been very skeptically portrayed to show the intense trauma Venkat is facing in the first half and the series of events that forms the horror sequences in the second one. However, the movie lacks proper narration, and it's hard to understand the exact motive of the director in the first half. It also requires a concrete story to convince the audience of the events. The music of the movie is another plus point that it will enrich the experience of the audience. The movie is very good with its unique and dramatic way of scaring the audience. It is bot for faint hearted people, and it will be better if they avoid it. Star performances: Viswa Kamal is very impressive with his performance in the movie. He has beautifully portrayed the character of Venkat. Vindhya Yadav, on the other hand, is also amazing in the role of the ghost. She has embraced the unique look of the ghost with her bold performance. The direction has been average Jaishankar Chirugula has disappointed in this area. However, he has done better as an editor and has completed the job. Srivaas is another important person of the crew and has captured visuals brilliantly as a cinematographer. Abhishek Walimbe has given the music and has added another dimension to the movie with it. What's there? The movie is a treat for the lovers of horror movies. It has some very scaring sequences which will pump the adrenaline in all your cells. It is capable of horrifying the audience with its firm scenes. Also, the movie has amazing visuals and some melodious music which takes the movie to another level. What's not there? The movie lacks proper narration and is very confusing sometimes. Jaishankar Chirugula could have done a better job as a director, and the movie could have been clearer for the audience. It also lacks a firm and logical story to keep the audience occupied in the first half. Verdict: The movie is a complete entertainer if the flaws are ignored. It is quite scary to say and will please the lovers of this genre.

jiosaavn.com of film maker, just shows that the soundtrack for the movie exists vs yes i accept it as a primary source Writer Nagraj (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Review of changes since 1/24:

bookmyshow.com = no WP:SIGCOV of film maker, just shows that the movie exists

Speedy delete now that user has been banned as a sock puppet. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 03:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Pitonga

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

Completely unsourced. Mariamnei (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete: I can only find web listings in other encyclopedias, Grokpedia and other language ones. Article is unsourced, I'm not sure this is meeting our notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete I cannot find any decent sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of The Gambia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Congratulations! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Speeches of Joe Biden

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

The article is unreferenced, rudimentary in comprising only a list of links to where his individual speeches are discussed and the date of delivery. I believe that Biden's speeches are not notable as an independent topic and I can't find sources that discuss his speeches in general, rather than calling one of them "his best speech" or something like that. HKLionel TALK 16:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. HKLionel TALK 16:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Brought to AfD because I don't think this will be useful as a redirect, nor is there anything to merge. HKLionel TALK 16:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Lists. aaronneallucas (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is not an appropriately compiled list. He gave many more speeches than these, and this doesn't seem necessary. Links are already in the navbox as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment - The concept of a directory is not bad. This is the reason we have Categories though. Carrite (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: The content is already covered in the template at the bottom of the page. As an article, rather than a list, this fails core notability guidelines. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I don't really see the need for this, could have a category page for the individual articles that would accomplish the same thing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
And we do. This is needless duplication. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep I think I'm the only person here who sees this as a valid WP:LIST page as written, even as it is currently unsourced, as it includes links to only his speeches which are bluelinked, which is valid under our list notability guidelines. I don't share the viewpoint that this is unnecessary because it contains more speeches than are in the template, and infoboxes aren't great navigation tools on mobile devices. SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Even if it's valid, I believe it doesn't meet WP:NLIST because, as I stated in my nom, I believe that Biden's speeches are not notable as an independent topic and I can't find sources that discuss his speeches in general, rather than calling one of them "his best speech" or something like that. HKLionel TALK 17:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
WP:NLIST does not require the group to be discussed as a set, or notable as an independent topic, though, just that it is an accepted reason why a list would be notable. Per WP:CSC, a grouping which constitutes a clearly related list of notable entries should be fine on notability grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 11:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
I take NLIST to mean if part of the list is in RS, all of such a list can be on here. Like if you had "list of Bidens best speeches". ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NOTDUPE and WP:NLIST. The topic has received coverage . Kelob2678 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOPAGE / WP:TNT. The sources identified by Kelob2678 do demonstrate a pass of WP:NLIST. We could have an article here. However, this article is so badly constructed that it's an eye sore. It's an over-bloated navigation tool that is redundant of the Joe Biden NAVBOX (and that NAVBOX communicates the same thing in one line of text rather than taking up an entire page). The article currently offers no real content and takes up tremendous size while simultaneously offering no substantive prose. If we are going to have an article here, we would need either a better formatted table (rather than subsections that don't say anything beyond the date of the speech). Or subsections with actual summary content. As it is the article is incompetently made and has zero benefit to the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
The formatting would be easily fixed, though, and there's no time limit. I'm not sure I understand the navbox argument. SportingFlyer T·C 11:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge into a bullet list in Joe Biden. A bunch of headings and hatnotes is not an article. Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC).

Keep Useful page but add sources and correct formatting.User:Sharnadd (talk) 06:41,11 January 2026

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep - There seems to be no one specific format on lists of speeches. Please see Category:United States presidential speeches — Maile (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep - per Maile. This list is not unprecedented. Azuredivay (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep and rename. List of speeches by x is a valid list topic, and US presidential speeches tend to get extensive coverage as a set (WP:NLIST, as evidenced by the aforementioned Category:United States presidential speeches). The area appears to be undercovered, unfortunately. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep and rename List of speeches by Joe Biden. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Strong delete as per Oaktree's explanation. I do not see any use/mention notability for his speech style or speeches as a whole, just speeches by him in the wild. A category would be enough for searchability purposes. Historyexpert2 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Strathfield, New South Wales#Commercial areas. Sandstein 12:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Strathfield Plaza

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

This article has an extremely minimal amount of sources so probably fails the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Seeing as all sources are primary and not secondary, I highly doubt notability is at all implied. The relevant guideline for geographic features (WP:NGEO) says "A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply."

I suspect the only reason this article is being kept around is so it can link back to the shooting.

I acknowledge that the article could be vastly improved with much more information and citations but currently it has too little of any content to be considered as a proper fully-sourced encyclopaedic article. WP:REDUNDANT discourages this kind of article that has very little information. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Strathfield, New South Wales #Commercial areas where this is mentioned at target as a WP:ATD and WP:BLAR. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to State Bank of India#Non-banking subsidiaries. Sandstein 12:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

SBI Card

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

Company does not pass WP:NCORP. Current sources are all WP:CORPTRIV, and BEFORE found nothing beyond routine business activity and company announcements. Meadowlark (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, and India. Meadowlark (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited is an independent ‘ public’ listed company, The SBI Bank only hold stake in SBI Card. The management is also independent. How will the people who trade their stocks will get the information about a listed company if it is redirected? It is not a subsidiary, It is an independent listed company. Jsmentkol (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to State Bank of India#Non-banking subsidiaries, where it's mentioned, under WP:ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited is an independent ‘ public’ listed company, The SBI Bank only hold stake in SBI Card. The management is also independent. How will the people who trade their stocks will get the information about a listed company if it is redirected? It is not a subsidiary, It is an independent listed company. Jsmentkol (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to State Bank of India#Non-banking subsidiaries ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited is an independent ‘ public’ listed company, The SBI Bank only hold stake in SBI Card. The management is also independent. How will the people who trade their stocks will get the information about a listed company if it is redirected? It is not a subsidiary, It is an independent listed company. Jsmentkol (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to State Bank of India#Non-banking subsidiaries ATD, and we're not the Bloomberg terminal. Nathannah • 📮 19:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited is an independent ‘ public’ listed company, The SBI Bank only hold stake in SBI Card. The management is also independent. How will the people who trade their stocks will get the information about a listed company if it is redirected? It is not a subsidiary, It is an independent listed company. Jsmentkol (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
From a reputable business publication that can state that more specifically, not us. Nobody invests in a company based on their Wikipedia article (no matter how many brute-force article scammers think that's a thing). Nathannah • 📮 17:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to State Bank of India#Non-banking subsidiaries. The subject is already listed there. --SaTnamZIN (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
State Bank of India and SBI Card both are different companies. Both are complete different entities. SBI Card Page was made long back in 2012. If it is not notable enough then why the page is there in Wikipedia till 2026 ? Jsmentkol (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Because no one noticed until now, @Jsmentkol. This is unfortunately very common. We have millions of articles, more being created each day, and not enough volunteers to look at all of them. Meadowlark (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited is an independent ‘ public’ listed company, The SBI Bank only hold stake in SBI Card. The management is also independent. How will the people who trade their stocks will get the information about a listed company if it is redirected? It is not a subsidiary, It is an independent listed company. Jsmentkol (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

SBI Card is a publicly listed company. If information is redirected to another company, it raises a serious concern about how retail investors and shareholders will access authentic and verified information.

Moreover, SBI itself is also a listed entity. Redirecting or mixing information in this manner can create unnecessary confusion for investors and stakeholders, which is neither appropriate nor correct. ~2026-42287-1 (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
This comment is the first and only (so far) edit/comment by @~2026-42287-1. Also, it seems to be an AI version of Jsmentkol's comment. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
That is not any AI Generated Response. SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited is a separate company and have enough notability to be on Wikipdia. Jsmentkol (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a division of the State Bank of India, and unless someone is only looking on Wikipedia for investment advice (which they should not), they are undoubtedly knowlegable enough to know that SBI Card just by the initials alone is a SBI subsidiary. There's absolutely no confusion as it's spelled out in the name. Nathannah • 📮 17:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited is a separate company and have enough notability to be on Wikipedia Jsmentkol (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
You're now into bludgeoning territory; stop trying to derail it and let the discussion play out naturally. Nathannah • 📮 19:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
All the Non-banking subsidiaries of "State Bank of India" has their individual Wikipedia Pages. Then why SBI Card can't have a separate Wikipedia Page ? Then go and delete all the subsidiaries Wikipedia Pages.

Notable non-banking subsidiaries of SBI include:
SBI Capital Markets Ltd.

SBI Cards & Payments Services Ltd.

SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.

SBI Funds Management Ltd.

Jsmentkol (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Your feedback has been received (and nope, can't cite a Wikipedia article); please cease or this will be brought up on a noticeboard. 19:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Nathannah • 📮 19:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, @Jsmentkol, to quote Andy Dingley, "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS / WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a policy." ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect - agreed with the comments of my fellow editors. Dgbombay (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge with State Bank of India#Non-banking subsidiaries. This company is essentially a card-issuing subsidiary of State Bank of India, and we can only write about two paragraphs of encyclopedic content for it. That content would be better covered on the bank's own page in line with WP:NOPAGE. I'm not opposed to a plain redirect as suggested by others. Yuvaank (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete, since the originator takes issue with the option of Redirect, but since corporate notability is not met. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

James Gurr

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

No real claim of significance other than subject was almost an olympian. –DMartin (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –DMartin (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I PROD'ed this article but it was removed. I was having a look at the sourcing when the OP beat me to nominating the article. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent reliable sources. Ping me if anyone finds anything. TarnishedPath^talk 08:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I seconded the PROD, but it was declined by Jimmyg141 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, without providing a reason(though I know that isn't required).–DMartin (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi there,

I have included multiple sources in the references below. I hope they meet the criteria. Thanks! Jimmyg141 (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I have included multiple claims of significance including the representation of Australia in 2017 as well as providing links to the necessary claims. I hope this satifies the criteria.

Cheers. Jimmyg141 (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the list of references, only two (maybe) appear to be reliable and Gurr is not the main subject of those. He isn't even mentioned in one of them (the one about Bett failing a drug test). TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The article was created by the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Might pass notability with the bronze wins, but sourcing isn't sufficient. I think this is the same person , but it's not enough. Article is sourced to Youtube and trivial mentions in other articles. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics, Australia, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to support notability. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete, has not "achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level". Geschichte (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - unfortunately, we as a community came to a strong consensus that participation in the Olympic Trials does not make one notable. I say unfortunately because my brother has been in multiple Olympic trials, and have had to tell him repeatedly that he is not notable for that. Also, people writing their own Wikipedia articles is being used as an excuse to take away our charitable status. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Respectfully it goes beyond mere participation. The deficit of missing the Olympics was 0.09 seconds over 800m, which is minimal. Additionally, 3 Olympic Trials finals were reached so it goes beyond being an 'also-ran'. The subject also participated in the 2017 World Relay Championships the following year, in addition to winning multiple national medals.

The subjects participation with the US Collegiate system is also somewhat noteworthy, winning Division 1 Conference. Jimmyg141 (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was WP:DRAFTIFY. (non-admin closure) 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 08:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Law of Lines

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

WP:TOOSOON and doesn't meet WP:TVSERIES 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 07:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 07:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I understand the concerns regarding WP:TOOSOON and WP:TVSERIES. I would like to move the article to Draft space so I can continue working on it and adding reliable sources as they become available. Once the series meets the necessary notability criteria, I will move back to the mainspace. MeloMaster (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Sure 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 08:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was WP:DRAFTIFY. (non-admin closure) 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 08:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Nine to Six

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

WP:TOOSOON and doesn't meet WP:TVSERIES 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 07:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊^(talk) 07:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I understand the concerns regarding WP:TOOSOON and WP:TVSERIES. I would like to move the article to Draft space so I can continue working on it and adding reliable sources as they become available. Once the series meets the necessary notability criteria, I will move back to the mainspace. MeloMaster (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Lauren Bis

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. All sources given are incidental to the subject; they give either passing mentions of the subject's opinions or of the subject's comments in her role as a spokesperson. Nothing focusing on her specifically found. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 06:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Media Relations is very unlikely to be notable. Most of the sourcing I find is from Newsmax, very much not a RS, or other blogs/websites complaining about the current administration. Most items used for sourcing in the article are about what this person's opinions are, not really helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - notability is not inherited from an organization that you work for. The position is not inherently notable. The sources are not really reliable. We have very high standards for BLPs, in part because we want to avoid lawsuits. Bearian (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 07:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Stefan Preković

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

Stub for a junior scientist with an h-factor if 23, 2.5K cites and no major awards. He has made a good start with his citations/year showing a strong increase, but it is WP:TOOSOON by some years. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Yes: much too soon. Let's come back in ten years. Athel cb (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. While numbers are important and an indicator of one's success, this is also a specific person with a long road behind him who has managed to achieve a lot of noteworthy projects. Could Wikipedians please adopt a more "try to expand and improve an article" instead of a "criticize too much and put all sorts of labels" on an article I only have time to begin as a stub. ~2026-45268-9 (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Too soon. Scopus analysis of ~100 of his coauthors with 15+ papers:
Citations: average: 9637, median: 2770, Prekovic: 1752; Papers: 123, 66, 55; h-index: 34, 25, 21; Top 5 papers: 1st: 1488, 437, 398; 2nd: 745, 274, 165; 3rd: 528, 174, 123; 4th: 420, 151, 119; 5th: 329, 130, 101. JoelleJay (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete Very plainly not ready as outlined above. OrangeWaylon (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Preković could very well make major discoveries in the future, but this stub is poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add two good sources. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete As per comments above Боки 💬 📝 20:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Mike Signorelli

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

No evidence this pastor passes WP:GNG/WP:NBIO and bringing to AfD since a previous redirect by Onel5969 was contested. The sources are: brief, relatively trivial mentions not reaching the level of WP:SIGCOV (, , , ), routine coverage of his church but not of him (, ), and promotional regurgitation of his social media posts/commentary or interview content (and thus non-independent) (, , , , , , ). His films have zero independent reviews (, ) and I couldn't find any reviews for his books, or any other independent qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Christianity, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I've added new references including an independent film review from Movieguide, which provides substantive critical analysis of The Domino Revival. The new sources strengthen the case for notability, and I'd encourage reviewers to evaluate the article with these additions. ~2026-22745-3 (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep Sources indicate that the figure is notable to the kind of sources that find the figure notable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
@Tioaeu8943 Which sources?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete. The subject seems like a known figure in the Christian sphere and press, respected for his opinions on various subjects, but doesn't really have sigcov in a mainstream sense. And the Washington Times isn't quite enough, especially as there is no consensus on it being a reliable source. WashTimes covers Signorelli's claims about a religious resurgence but doesn't seem to fact-check them, and so it comes across as an opinion piece disguised as a journalistic article. As for the sole 'Keep' !vote above, I don't think "circular notability" (notable because sources, whatever they are, find the subject notable) is an appropriate wiki argument. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Soruced to several marginal sources. I can only find links to buy the books, no reviews, so no passing AUTHOR. I didn't see much about the films, other than the sources now in the article. Not quite enough sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Communist Party of Canada without prejudice against selective merge as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 07:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Drew Garvie

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No public elected office. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete – Garvie's predecessor has her own page and never held any public office (aside from being a school board trustee decades ago), however she had the publicity to pass GNG. I expect Garvie will, at a later date, meet the guideline too, but this is too soon and the sources are not promising. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I don't see much coverage for this individual, is probably the best, is a brief mention. I was going to suggest a redirect, but not sure where, if the Federal or Provincial Communist Party article is the choice, as this person led both of them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Per norm. Fails WP:NPOL. Tuesden (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation if and when the case for notability changes. Leaders of minor fringe parties do not get automatic notability freebies just for existing as party leaders — the inclusion test hinges on the quality and depth of reliable source coverage about the person and their work that can be shown to support an article with. The difference from Elizabeth Rowley here is that Rowley was a party leader at the provincial and federal levels for 24 years, and thus garnered a significant volume of GNG-worthy coverage in that time — but Garvie has only been a party leader for 50 days, and has absolutely nothing in the way of GNG-worthy coverage yet. If and when he does have enough coverage to pass GNG, then we can reconsider, but just being a leader of a party with no legislative representation isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from GNG. (Also, colour me confused by the creator's username, which directly implies support for a different party than Garvie's.) Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge with Communist Party of Canada. If like most CPC leaders he remains in office for decades there should eventually be enough reliable, independent sources to justify a stand-alone article. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

William Henry Hunt Gleason

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

One term mayor of town with less than 1000 residents during term. Only sources are genealogy, and could not find WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Florida. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete: No evidence of notability. –DMartin (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. It appears that they do not meet any of our guidelines for notability. Aneirinn (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. As always, mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they served as mayors per se — the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on minimally verifying that he existed, it hinges on writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact (specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth). But there's no content of that type here, and the article is depending almost entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability — the sole exception being his obituary, which is not enough to vault him over WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - one source is a family-written obituary, and a second is a genealogy. That's not enough for significant coverage. Nomination has met the burden of proof. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Khalid ibn al-Walid Army without prejudice against merging properly sourced content. Owen× ☎ 07:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Islamic State – Hawran Province

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

Thus article is synth. The logo in the Infobox doesn’t say “hawran wilayah” which in any case isn’t the Arabic for “hawran province.” None of the sources cited mention a “hawran province” as far as I can see. They are just discussing ISIS attacks more generally. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Islam, and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Alot of the sources mention Hawran. JaxsonR (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that the most recent ones (2025) do not. But see the talk page as to why. JaxsonR (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I think one of the sources used is a propaganda site used by the Islamic State. Buddy731 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes they mention Hauran, but Hauran is just the name of a region in Syria, and it is mentioned in lots of sources talking about some aspect of Syria. What the sources don’t do is provide any coverage of the Hauran province of ISIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The talk page discussion supposes that the Hauran province merged with another ISIS entity in 2019. It provides no evidence of this and no sources. The article you wrote is almost entirely about pre-2019, and the sources you chose to provide in the article do not support the existence of a Hauran province in ISIS at that time. The whole thing is held together by supposition and inference. Mccapra (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that the Islamic State merged Wilāyat Ḥāwrān with ten other wilāyat in Syria (Wilāyat al-Baraka, Wilāyat al-H̱ayr, Wilāyat ar-Raqqa, Wilāyat Ḥimṣ, Wilāyat Ḥalab, Wilāyat Idlib, Wilāyat Ḥamā, Wilāyat Dimašq, Wilāyat al-Furāt, and Wilāyat as-Sāḥil). We could try to find better sources and remove any pre-2018 operations A.S.A.P. Buddy731 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge Into the larger page on the Islamic State? Would that make more sense instead of deleting the entire page? Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge what? The sources in the article don’t establish that there ever was an ISIS Hauran province. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Khalid ibn al-Walid Army ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge into Khalid ibn al-Walid Army. Wilayat Hawran is essentially the administrative continuation of the JKW following IS's shift in 2018 in Syria from territorial control to shadow governance. After JKW's physical collagpse, IS consolidated all Syrian sub-units, including Wilayat Hawran, into a single Wilayat al-Sham. But it was never an official IS's province, like, say Islamic State – Khorasan Province, and shouldn't have a standalone article. Sources: , , , , among others. Longhornsg (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
That is actually a really good idea. JaxsonR (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Similar to Abu Sayyaf. I think we should atleast add the Provinces logo. Right? JaxsonR (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mccapra Just letting you know that you are wrong about the logo. The logo can be seen in this image from this website JaxsonR (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

not sure what you meant me to look at but the image you shared isn’t of the logo, the site you shared isn’t a reliable source, and I’m not wrong about it as I read Arabic. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Navi Mumbai#Education as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 03:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Bharati Vidyapeeth College of Architecture

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

Lacks enough reliable sources to pass WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Only thing I could find was some non-WP:INDY (mostly promotional) paragraphs in a book they helped write. Delete or redirect to Navi Mumbai#Education as an WP:ATD. GoldRomean (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Agnel Polytechnic

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

Lacks any sources to pass WP:RS and also lacks enough notability to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Google news only shows routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails to meet GNG, and WP:ORG too. Routine announcements across the online search only. Imtisig (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Dylan Taylor (executive). Sourcing has been shown to be insufficient, but this preserves the history should more be identified Star Mississippi 03:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Voyager Technologies

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

The sourcing consists of primary sources and WP:SERIESA routine coverage, with no indication of notability at this point. Niafied (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Colorado. Niafied (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge and re-dir to Dylan Taylor (executive) for now. They have a plan (in the future) to build a science park in Ohio, but it's not done yet. So, I think they might not meet WP:NCORP yet, but it can be a section on Dylan's page. Graywalls (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete to me their main claim to notoriety at the moment is the (potential) future Starlab (space station), with not much else to show for it at the moment. The paragraph about the company that is already on Dylan Taylor (executive) is sufficient. Not sure if redirecting there is useful but I am not opposed to it. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅📬⋅📜 15:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment - they raised $300+ million, so they're definitely up to something more than talk. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the nomination: this is a non-notable company any existing coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage of WP:SERIESA funding. The dot-com boom and crash would indicate that amount of funding is not a good indicator of doing something more than talk. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep: It does satisfy the requirements of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG well. The company has gone through with a $382.8M IPO on the NYSE (VOYG) since the nomination in June 2025, which had substantial analytical coverage in the large financial outlets (e.g., Morningstar, Reuters). In addition to this, as the lead partner in the Starlab space station project (the successor of the ISS), it has also been the target of long-term, non-routine clearance in independent secondary media such as SpaceNews and Ars Technica on its NASA achievements and international joint ventures. SanneMonte (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Merely having an IPO doesn't demonstrate notability and the sources found so far don't satisfy SIGCOV. MightyRanger (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Dylan Taylor (executive) as per ATD. None of the *sources* meet GNG/WP:NCORP requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep: There are enough sources to establish notability. Also it is NYSE listed public company and would be in the interest of Wikipedia readers to keep.Darkm777 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Viswam Engineering College

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

This page is incomplete, lacks reliable sources, and is not notable enough in general to pass WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL, and WP:RS Filmssssssssssss (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

MVGR College of Engineering

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

It seems like digging deeper, all of the sources for this page come from the institution itself. This page is also poorly written (contradicts itself in its founding date), and also lacks notability to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL, it also seems to have a WP:COI issue. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

NewSchool of Architecture and Design

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

Fails WP:NORG. Has some limited independent coverage but I do not think sig cov sources yield GNG. Remaining sources on page do not help establish notability of the org itself. Googling shows some independent coverage but I do not think enough sig cov for GNG. Czarking0 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Czarking0 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 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.

Kripaon Ki Mata Church

Bollajira Aiyappa

Nairobi Bachelor

Steamexfire

Cequens

DUPR

Berthe, Duchess of Rohan

Immanuel Henry

List of Craig Kellman Filmography

Seshadri Rao Gudlavalleru Engineering College

SMVM Polytechnic, Tanuku

Kevin Kantor

Vaidam health

Giacomo Vose

Dan Leek

Battle of Turkistan (1718)

Ali Dahlan Nasution

Patna Traffic Police

Utazzo Holidays

Siwet Tomar

CLdN

Abdulaziz Mashi Abdullahi

PO EZRI

Jaishankar Chigurula (Film director)

Pitonga

James Gurr

Lauren Bis

Stefan Preković

Mike Signorelli

William Henry Hunt Gleason

Agnel Polytechnic

Viswam Engineering College

MVGR College of Engineering

NewSchool of Architecture and Design

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks