Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 June 13

Genetic structure

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

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

I propose redirecting because it seems to be worse duplicate of Population structure (genetics). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect -- I'm the primary author of genetic structure and I agree this makes sense. Feel free to speedy it. Hesperian 01:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect, absolutely - duplicative. (BTW, the single listed source is the most typo- and grammar issue-ridden book chapter I have ever seen. Publisher's editors must have been out to lunch that decade) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect This is duplicative as is a better WP:ATD. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect Author agrees. toby ^(t)(rw) 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Population structure (genetics) per nomination does make sense. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:58, 19 June 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.

Pandenulf of Capua

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

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

Merge and redirect to Principality of Capua#Origins. Sources only mention Pandenulf himself in explaining the history of the region, and any non-trivial mentions are much more focused on Capua than the subject. Best sources do appear to be those given in the article, which suffer from the same issues. The small amount of non-trivia information here that is not already in the target article should be merged in at the chronologically correct place. RaisedArizona (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. RaisedArizona (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, sources only mention Pandenulf in connection with the time and place in which he lived and the events in which he was involved. So what? He is also called Pandonolf. There is no benefit to merging. Srnec (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  What I mean to say is that the articles don't discuss Pandenulf himself in any real depth. They are about the history of Capua, and that's what the WP:SIGCOV is on. The fact that Pandenulf was a bit player in that history is reflected in the focus of the sources, where he in many cases only referred to in WP:PASSING and/or as simply being the Count of Capua when something historical occured in Capua, not to him personally. In instances where he plays more of a role, I would again argue those need not be duplicated/separated here from the target article; what very minimal characterization he is given (mostly in the Erchempert source and analyses thereof) can be incorporated just fine there. RaisedArizona (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with your interpretation of SIGCOV and point you to WP:SUMMARY. If you want to regard Pandenulf's article as a subarticle of Principality of Capua, go ahead. But the level of detail we could include in it does not belong in the main article. It could not at all be incorporated "just fine". Nor does "passing mention" describe what Erchempert says about Pandenulf nor what analyses of Erchempert say. He was a person and he is as "characterized" as anybody in Erchempert's chronicle. Let me quote how Erchempert introduces him from Luigi Andrea Berto's translation:

  [Bishop Landolf] put his nephew, Pandonolf, as count of Capua, in place of his father, Pando. Pandonolf was wounded in the battle in which his father died and from which he managed to escape half-alive. He was a friend of Maio's brother-in-law, Dauferius.

  This is about him, not Capua. Srnec (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Srnec. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Principality of Capua#Origins per nomination. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments are balanced on the merits: more input would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep There is enough information about Pandenulf write a full encyclopedia entry and most of that information would be unsuitable for Principality of Capua, so there's no reason to merge the articles. Edward056686 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 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.

2023 STCC Scandinavia Touring Car Championship

2023 STCC Scandinavia Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cancellation of seasons are nothing new and like many of these, this one have done it quietly. Only backed by a single primary source. Having checked for sources per WP:BEFORE turns out barely any at all. BuffaloTaro (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Sweden. BuffaloTaro (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Since the first electric season was postponed to 2024, I would suggest a redirect to 2024 STCC Scandinavia Touring Car Championship as an WP:ATD. MSport1005 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Redirect to 2024 STCC Scandinavia Touring Car Championship per @MSport1005.

  ScottyNolan (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view and livestreaming events

List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view and livestreaming events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Proposing merging with the List of Ring of Honor special events. Not sure either of these really meet the mark for WP:NLIST to begin with and this is bordering on WP:LISTCRUFT, but I think a reasonable ATD would be merging the two. I couldn't find anything that discusses this particularly niche topic as a whole other than databases, fan sites, blogs, and other what appear to be self-published sites. nf utvol (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Wrestling. nf utvol (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: There's a key difference between special events and the pay-per-view/livestreaming events is the fact that pay-per-view and livestreaming events are often marketed as their own separate events from house shows and special episodes of Ring of Honor Wrestling. Also, I wouldn't really count industry-specific news sources like PWInsider, Fightful, F4WOnline, PWTorch, Pro Wrestling Dot Net, or POST Wrestling as fan sites or blogs. There's a lot of pay-per-view and livestreaming events that Ring of Honor has done in recent years that people sadly have overlooked. Sadly I haven't really had the time to get the main event matches and the sources in but I'll get to it eventually. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. Maybe even delete? FaviFake (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Not the same thing. A Pay-Per-View is a premium event that happens maybe once every year. A special event is a themed event of a normal weekly show. Just take a look at the List of Ring of Honor special events and the List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view and livestreaming events. In the special events you have Global Wars, Boxing Day Brawl, and War of the Worlds. In the Pay-Per-Views you have Supercard of Honor, Death Before Dishonor, and Final Battle. There's a big difference between those two things.

WWEAEWTNAFAN (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with the topic, but I'm still not sure what the significant difference is. It seems like pay-per-view events are just a subset of other special events beyond the typical recurring shows. nf utvol (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Not true at all in regards to that. For it to be a special event, it would have to be aired as a television special (on a TV station or TV network or as an episode of ROH's weekly programming) or as a non-televised event that would either be released on DVD or not. Pay-per-view and livestreaming events work differently than that as it would have to be aired as a livestreamed event on Honor Club or YouTube (or even on pay-per-view) or something separate from Ring of Honor's usual programming. WWE and TNA both have lists that clearly define that. I'm sorry but to be honest here, considering you admitted to not being familiar with the topic, I'm not sure if we can take this discussion seriously. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I still think there's a case to be made for merging the two. I'm sorry you don't feel as though you should take this discussion seriously... nf utvol (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• I oppose, I think that the articles should stay separate just like WWE's & TNA's pay-per-view & special event pages are separate. I don't even think that pages List of Ring of Honor personnel & List of former Ring of Honor personnel should've unified either in the first place. ~2026-33625-92 (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that two things "not being the same thing" is not a valid argument against a merger. We routinely merge articles and lists about distinctly different things, as long as readers would benefit from seeing the two on the same page. Please address WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGEREASON.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:06, 13 June 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.

Hupia

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

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

• Merge Hupia to Taíno mythology

Nominator's rationale There are only a handful of sources mentioning "hupia" in passing. The topic does not have notability separate from the general subject of Taíno mythology. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Mythology, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Besides the one present in the article, found these sources:

1. - The hupia is a spirit of the dead in Taíno culture, as opposed to the goeiza, or spirit of the living. The hupia can adopt many forms, including that of fruit, but it usually appears without a face or looks like a deceased loved one. If they choose the latter, they'll be almost indistinguishable from the living. After death, the dead are supposed to go to Coaybay, a place whose name has been variously translated as "dwelling place of the dead" or "abode of the absent ones". It is apparently remote and inaccessible to the living, viewed as a separate place with its own leader. The hupia leave Coaybay at night to move among the living. In the 15th century, Friar Ramón Pané recorded these Taíno beliefs about death and the afterlife, and while his accounts are the most contemporary writings about the Taino culture from European first contact, his Catholicism also likely affected how he preserved the information. The easiest way to spot a hupia is their lack of a navel or face. Their missing face signifies that they've lost their identity by passing into death (which also explains how they can adopt different forms, since they're no longer a unique individual). The missing navel shows that they lost their place in the Taino community when they died. The navel is the original link to the mother, and in Taino culture, determining your place in the community. Given the differences in belief about death between the Taino and the European colonizers, its difficult to tell if the ancient Taino actually feared hupias or simply accepted them as part of life. In some legends, they seduced women or kidnapped anyone who was out after sundown. If a living man tried to embrace a hupia woman, she disappeared. In other legends, hupias slept during the day and ventured out at night to dance and celebrate. They were sometimes linked with bats, and were apparently fond of eating guava fruit. The hupia made the leap to popular culture in 199o in Michael Crichton's novel, Jurassic Park. In the book, the hupia became a vampiric creature that kidnapped small children at night. It's possible that this version of the hupia lives on in contemporary folklore, separated from the original hupia by both the passage of time and a change in belief system.
2. - The Hupia. As Jurassic Park is located on an island about a hundred miles off Costa Rica, InGen is, from the start, associated with the Costa Rican "hupia" spirits that are purported to dwell on offshore islands and kidnap children. The injured InGen worker claims that a hupia was responsible for his plight. These hupia prove to be the most notable symbol in the novel: after Tina is attacked, Dr. Guitierrez's research indicates that several babies around Costa Rica have recently been attacked by lizards. Bearing these events in mind, along with the fact that the injured InGen worker is described as "a boy," we infer at this point that the hupia have something to do with InGen and lizards. Later, it is more than mere coincidence that the first big dinosaur attack happens to Tim and Lex. The dying guard's talk about hupia links the concept of the hupia to both the word "raptor" and the local lizard attacks. Once we become aware that InGen has been breeding dinosaurs-not mere lizards-the connection between hupia and the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park is obvious. Indeed, the dinosaurs InGen has created seem to instinctively attack children. Crichton uses this idea to vilify the dinosaurs, making, them even more fearsome forces of evil than they might be if they were not especially targeting defenseless children.
3. - This one's horror novel, having a page about encounters with hupias.....that's what I could make out of it.
4. - Pg. 64 of this
5. Multiple journals

There are also some beat-around-the-bush kinds of sources, which can help to expand the article. Overall, the coverage looks pretty enough to have a standalone article. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 03:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@BhikhariInformer: I feel the need to point out that almost none of these are reliable sources. The first is by a "folklore blogger", the second is a SparkNotes guide to the novel Jurassic Park, the third is a work of modern fiction, and the fourth is by Theresa Bane, a self-proclaimed "vampirologist" whose books have been causing problems on mythology articles for years. The fifth is simply a PDF: I can't see anything to suggest that the text contained therein appeared in an academic journal, and the poor formatting seems to argue against that conclusion. The sixth is an article from an academic journal, but it doesn't contain the word "hupia"; does it use an alternative spelling that I'm not recognising? The seventh both includes the word "hupia" and seems to be reliable, but all it does is translate the word as "specter", which doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for analysing them....I hadn't dug that deep! I withdraw my keep vote. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The page right now is bad, but it clearly can be improved and expanded with decent citations. I think there are enough sources for this to merit its own article. The Taino mythology page clearly also needs a lot of work, but merging this seems like a step backwards. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The sources found by BhikhariInformer prove this topic easily passes WP:GNG.
• Merge to Taíno mythology as proposed by the nominator. The shortcomings in my sources have been pointed out by Michael Aurel. So, I guess the two other keep votes also gets discredited since the sources I had presented have been rebutted. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:19, 19 June 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.

Dipak Giri

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and likely fails WP:AUTHOR / WP:PROF. Most references are routine book reviews, interviews, primary/self-affiliated sources, or repeated coverage from a single outlet (The Hans India), which do not provide the significant independent coverage required to establish notability. Concerns also exist regarding the quality and depth of the coverage, with some sourcing appearing promotional and potentially AI-assisted rather than substantial independent journalism. The article also contains a promotional tone and relies heavily on non-independent sourcing. Siniha (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The subject of this article is notable enough for the inclusion in Wikipedia as per notability guidelines. Three reliable sources are enough to establish the notability. Besides The Hans India, you should also consider other sources where the subject appears in this article. There are sources like Zee News, Wilderness House Literary Review, Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics and Muse India. I think you should consider on reviews of his works more than interviews or author features published in the Newspaper or any other sources. The subject appears in many nonprofit reputable journals so far as reviews on his works are concerned. Two reviews of the subject even appears in Contemporary Voice of Dalit, a well repute journal published by sage publishing. I think you should focus more on works done by the subject and the reviews on those works. I have found your charges totally groundless. First, most references are routine book reviews. How can you judge those reviews are routine based?

Secondly, you have charged that most reviews are interviews. But there is only one interview out of twenty four references.

Thirdly, you have charged that there are primary/self-affiliated sources but how? Most of the sources are independent and have no relation with the subject. You should justify before charging against the subject.

Fourthly, you have charged repeated coverage from a single outlet The Hans India. Yes, the subject has appeared in this newspaper but you should not ignore the other sources I have already discussed above. They are also independent from the subject and reliable enough to be considered about the notability of any subject.

You have also charged the quality and the depth of the coverage with some sourcing that appear to you promotional, potentially AI assisted and promotional but how? You have not explained. It's not desirable to charge against the subject of an article only with its face value as it seems to you; rather you should go deeper at the time of reviewing an article and tagging with suggestion for deletion. Three genuine and reliable sources are enough for the notability and the subject covers more than three such sources. So, I request you to remove this tag from the article instead of furthering the discussion of deletion which I think groundless. ~2026-31898-02 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what the nom means by "routine book reviews". Book reviews in reliable sources (whether extraordinary or routine) absolutely count for WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, same here. The phrase "routine book reviews" has also made me puzzled. The charges are groundless. ~2026-31898-02 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This failed review and has been recreated, by someone with an obvious COI. Deb (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Your statement is vague and indistinct. What do you mean by 'the failed review' and 'someone with an obvious COI'. How are you sure? Explain in details. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related AfD discussions. pburka (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• weak keep: Prolific author, but hard to find reviews in RS. in a journal, this appears to have an editorial board, so I'd use it as a source. Barely confirms notability as an author. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry to interrupt you, what do you mean by 'RS'? You have mentioned two references. Both references are book reviews. I don't understand how they appear to you to be editorial board. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  "RS" is short for reliable sources. Book reviews are a typical way of establishing the notability of an author. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining 'RS'. But sources to me are reliable. They are independent as well as notable. No where seems to me that they are not reliable. These sources also have found space in Wikipedia for notability and reliability. ~2026-31898-02 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I also agree with 2026-31898-02 Rohit1976 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, passes WP:NAUTHOR, sources seem alright. "Routine book reviews" is an oxymoron. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not a wrestler here but somehow my fingers found this article and now here i am. First — User:~2026-31985-28 removed the {{{promo}}} hatnote of this article without participating in discussion. Then User:Rohit1976 cleared this article talk page, User:~2026-31898-02 brought it back like a hero, and User:Rohit1976 cleared it again. And simultaneously — simultaneously — the Wikipedia project discussion archive also got wiped. By the same user Rohit1976. I am looking at this very suspiciously right now. Second, this article is about a living academician, which is fine, but a PhD and a bibliography on the internet describes literally every academic alive. That is not notability, that is just having done the degree. The article is currently personal information plus a publication list, kind of CV and nothing else. By this logic every Harvard professor is owed an article and I think Wikipedia is not ready for that conversation. Thirdly, WP:RS/P. Ohh anyway, Abracadabra — and watch, some user might clean up this discussion too. — (i'm just, no i really drunk!!) ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 16:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I had cleared your question from the talk page because you asked there you did not know how this article had come in main space. Obviously after being reviewed by some senior editors, every editor should know about it. So, the questions seemed to me wrong and baseless and so I removed it. So, nothing here is suspicious. For your second doubt, please understand the subject is not just living academic and a PhD holder and a bibliography on the internet. The subject is notable enough. If you google properly, you will understand. Besides sources used in this article there are also so many other reliable sources too if one wishes to increase the list in the article. Your charge that this article is a cv is again wrong. The section 'works' has covered more than half of the section of this article with reliable and independent references. A cv comprises many other details which don't need references to validate notability which anyone can prepare for anyone. As per Wikipedia guidelines, the notability of a person is taken to be granted on reliable sources which this article already has so I think deletion will be violation of Wikipedia's policy. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Removing discussions from talk pages is generally frowned upon. This comment wasn't off-topic, so shouldn't have been removed. I advise you to restore the deleted section. pburka (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I did not know at the time of removing the discussion from talk pages is against the policy of Wikipedia so I removed it because it seemed to me baseless. Now I'm thankful to you that you have made me realize my mistake. I have restored the deleted section. In this discussion, MaxA-Matrix brought a reference of a discussion held on blocking me for creating a draft on Dipak Giri. Yes, I created a draft at that time and I was at my learning stage so I did so many mistakes and I was blocked for six months. During this blocking period, I tried to learn how Wikipedia article is written as per advice given at the time of blocking and when my blocking period was over, I found my draft on Dipak Giri was deleted. So, I wrote a new article on Dipak Giri and thankfully it was reviewed and accepted. I became happy over success of my first article on Wikipedia over which I had long been trying to get accepted and also seeking advices from experienced editors. Fortunately Jéské Couriano helped me with fruitful suggestions and advices that I could finally create an article on Dipak Giri successfully. It gave a positive energy. No sooner had this article was accepted than I created another article on Bill Ashcroft (author), it was also accepted within a day. It energized me more. Then I created my user page and wished to become a permanent editor on Wikipedia working on more articles. After two articles were accepted, I started preparing my mind to contribute another something or some person notable with significant coverage to Wikipedia, then I found this tag of deletion on my first Wikipedia article. One should always consider the sentiment of a new editor before tagging such fallacious and erroneous charges because such charges sometimes bring demotivation to new editors who wish to contribute something new and original to Wikipedia. With this message, I don't have any intention to bring charges against any editor. I have just confessed what is true. Rohit1976 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Rohit1976, looking at the editorial behaviour through secondary lenses, this appears to be a case of WP:COISELF. If this conclusion is wrong and the editing here is genuinely neutral and independent, then there should be no attachment issues with this article. A new editor can contribute across Wikipedia according to their interest to familiarise with the environment, rather than jumping into the war of defence of a single article. WP:DONTBITE may excuse the editorial pattern here, but every article undergoes continuous scrutiny under encyclopedia policy, and this one is no exception — it will either stand on its own merit or it will not. ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 14:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't understand how I have looked at the editorial behaviour through secondary lenses that appear to you to be a case of WP:COISELF. I request you to clarify in details. Rohit1976 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  As clarification warranted for WP:COISELF, I will take a direct approach:

  The article about Dipak Giri was first drafted by the subject himself under username @Dipakgiri84 in April 2019, but was deleted for the same reason this AfD was opened. He also uploaded a profile picture and signature at commons. In March 2022, he created another account, @Asimsanyal, and drafted the article again, which was again deleted due to abandonment.

  In November 2023, a third account, Rohit1976, drafted the article with identical content and uploaded a profile picture. When the image was nominated for deletion, the user stated that "I request to delete the image because this image was not taken by me; rather it was collected by someone so it's giving rise to copyright violation. I earnestly request you to delete this image. ... Mistakenly I claimed this image as my own. I request to delete this image. " in July 2026 — the same picture Dipak Giri uses on his own social media in lower quality. This pattern of reusing the subject's personal materials strongly suggests Rohit1976 is operating on behalf of, or is, the subject himself. Following repeated deletion and undeletion requests, Rohit1976 was blocked for 6 months in July 2025 for disruptive editing. The draft was ultimately deleted by Liz in January 2026 due to abandonment.

  After the block ended, Rohit1976 published the article directly in mainspace in February 2026, bypassing the draft review process. In March 2026, the same profile picture was re-uploaded by a new username, @Ahamed s, on Commons — continuing the same pattern. In May 2026, Rohit1976 attempted to erase associated logs - as i mentioned some instances in above thread. The editor @SZ8585 (renamed in May to User:SaTnamZIN), who assessed this article also abandoned in May following his NPP status issues. Similarly Rohit1976 created Dipak Giri's organization Creative Flight directly in mainspace, which was immediately deleted in June 2026. Temporary IP accounts have also been used on multiple occasions to advance the same objectives.

  Taken together — identical content, tone, wording across all accounts, repeated use of the subject's personal photos, creation of a related organization article, and the subject's own website mirroring the same information — the evidence strongly points to Dipakgiri84, Asimsanyal, Rohit1976 and some temporary ip account, all being/was operated by Dipak Giri himself. ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 18:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for this clarification. Also many thanks for studying all my activities from the beginning. Now I understand why my draft was rejected deliberately in spite of being the subject notable enough. I never felt relieved since I had started working on this draft. Now completely relieved knowing the reason. I'm grateful to you. Yes, all the user ids had been used by me. Sometimes I became fed up working on this draft because I was not understanding the reason. Now great relief! Yes, I started working on this draft using the user id Dipakgiri84 in the beginning because I thought the subject might know more than anyone about himself and I also thought Wikipedia permitted article only written by the subject because it might be more reliable as I have stated above. So, I started working with user id Dipakgiri84. I also thought the subject needed a photo and signature for proper validation of the profile as I had then studied some profiles and found signature there. I googled and found the photo of the subject which was uploaded and also collected signature from one of the contributors who had contributed to one of the books edited by the subject. Fortunately I knew him personally. He had collected a certificate of publication with signature from the subject and I prepared the draft but it was rejected. I still remember which you have not mentioned here. Then I discussed on Wikipedia why the draft was rejected and I was informed that I could not create draft for being subject of the draft. So, later I changed my user id and took another user id Asimsanyal. Now I remember as you have mentioned and created the draft but in due course of time I forgot the email id and also the user id used by me. So, I used another user id with another new email Rohit1976 but never changed this user id but still facing the problem of rejection of the draft Dipak Giri. Every time I saw the sentence of rejection written with notability and COI but I was not understanding that I had to click there and know more about rejection or I would have known earlier why the draft had been rejected deliberately. It was a great mistake on my part. I seek pardon to all those editors whom I offended. However, when I saw the tag of COI at the top of the draft with a link where it was advised to discuss further I tried to start discussion over rejection, though I did not know at that time how to start discussion. However, with some efforts, I became successful, then I was asked where I had found photo of the subject, I told the reviewer that it had been collected from some person whom I know and that person was known to the subject somehow. I did so because I did not wish to violate copy right by downloading photo from Internet without giving attribution to the creator. Yes, it was my mistake that in order to save myself from copyright infringement, I attributed myself as a creator of the photo. You did not mention about this discussion which was also held. Later I realised mistake and decided not to upload photo. As regards photo one of the editors during discussion suggested me to upload not by me but by some other user. Then I was blocked for 6 months with suggestions how to work on article cleaning COI and promotional languages. Then I started going deeper Wikipedia to understand its policies and guidelines, especially about notability and COI. When I understood well, I left the idea of working on the same draft as it was objected by the reviewers during rejection. I started a new article on the name space as I was confident that this time no issue arose. And I also used my mobile phone to upload the photo as I saw the photo was on Facebook profile page of Dipak Giri so that it won't be treated as offence as per Wikipedia policy. Social media photo does not fall under copy right infringement so far I know. I may be wrong. If you say my aim is to promote the subject and his organization Creative Flight. I never intended so. I had started editing before this organization was established by the subject. As this organization is crowded with many notable personalities and the subject himself being notable, my attention went there. Sorry, I never did all these things with bad intention; rather my purpose was to become an editor on Wikipedia and started with the subject as I know the subject very well for his works which he have been continuously working like many others who are his followers on social medias like Facebook, Academia and LinkedIn. All these mistakes are unintentional due to ignorance. Even I did not know that my all activities were archived on Wikipedia or I would have never removed them. I thought they were needless and so removed. However, now I'm so surprised that even my first id Dipakgiri84 is also there, though my activity on this id was comparatively so little, just opening and left it non-working forever. It's really praiseworthy that Wikipedia has made such software that every activity is detected. Now it's totally at the discretion of the editors and administrators whether they will forgive me or punish me but everyone has right to say in his defense. So, I have confessed here the fact because I'm challenged that I'm the subject DipaK Giri. Again I repeat my intention here is to become editor and not to hurt anybody or mistrusted by anybody. Sorry, if I unknowingly hurt anyone. Rohit1976 (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Strongly Keep: user: Siniha nominated this article for deletion with wrong intention and now has been blocked from editing to prevent abuse by user: Izno, one of the administrators on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not permit such kind of abusive intention.

~2026-31898-02 (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no particular interest in this topic, so I will refrain from further discussion. Whatever I had to say regarding the article has already been stated above. What does give me pause, however, is the editorial dynamic surrounding it — particularly why new editors are involving with this article, especially given that certain users connected to this topic have already gone to arbitration over issues such as WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:COI, and WP:BAN.

Who created the article, who nominated it for deletion, and who is participating in this discussion are merely contextual factors — not the deciding factor. The article should ultimately stand or fall on the strength of its sourcing and notability.

Having skimmed through its contents and the 24 references, I find myself without a strong objection either way in this AfD.

Pinging @Fylindfotberserk and @Jéské Couriano for their thoughts on the concerns raised here. ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 08:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep While the coverage and reviews of his book provide some indication of notability, but there remains a lack of adequate reliable and independent sourcing. Last of The Time (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your opinion. But there is not some indication for notability. Just do a simple google search and you'll know the subject is notable enough for the inclusion in Wikipedia. You have objected that the sources are not reliable and independent but how? Most of the sources used in this page are reliable in the sense that they are nonprofit journals and even given space in Wikipedia for their notability. Sources like The Hans India, Zee News, Wilderness House Literary Review, Sage Publishing, Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics and Muse India are obviously reliable and independent sources. Other sources like Creative Saplings, Das Literarisch, Litinfinite, Confluence and Consortium are peer-reviewed nonprofit journals and should be counted as reliable sources. Rohit1976 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 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.

Colombia national under-17 football team results

Colombia national under-17 football team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST, no evidence that these have been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Colombia. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, youth team stats/records are not notable. GiantSnowman 08:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic per a dozen precedents. Geschichte (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Having every youth team have their own stats on here is untenable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Colombia national under 17 football team. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a raw sports database WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Staticspector (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough for a page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: We aren't gonna have a list for every record....Wiki isn't a REPOSITORY. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:38, 20 June 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.

Jurgen Dosti

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

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

Dosti's career was short and he mostly played in the second tier of Albania. I couldn't find any evidence of a WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC pass and playing in a professional league is no longer an automatic notability pass. I found one article in Panorama about him but it's really just a post-match quote from him about a goal celebration. It contains no independent, significant coverage of Dosti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Athlete just not enough sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 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.

South Vietnam national under-20 football team results

South Vietnam national under-20 football team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST, no evidence that these have been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Vietnam. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, youth team stats/records are not notable. GiantSnowman 08:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to South Vietnam national under-20 football team – There are only a few matches played, can be included in a section of the main article. Svartner (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge To South Vietnam national under-20 football team. Accurate but short doesn't meet WP:GNG for a standalone page, but works perfectly as a section in the main section. Staticspector (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary sports page--not even sure it's worth a Merge. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't agree that a team page should list each and every match, that would be overly detailed stats. Geschichte (talk) 06:19, 20 June 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.

New England–style hot dog bun

New England–style hot dog bun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Hot dog bun because this is just a variation on the main article. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The sourcing seems to be good enough to keep this as an article. We have the Boston Globe and New England Today which should be enough to pass WP:GNG. The article could use some slimming down and Instacart absolutely shouldn't be used as a source, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Its not about meeting GNG. We have two articles, which are stubs with under 5k of data being held in both. The only noticeable difference i can see is that New England style are sliced across the top, and the rest are sliced down the side. However, outside of the US we just call them Hot dog rolls. For example, in the UK Warburtons produce top sliced rolls but they are called just Hot Dog Rolls , aa do Sheldons , but the majority sold in supermarkets are unsliced but still called the main name. Australia is the same . Unless there is a huge difference in the style of baking them, which i cannot find, they should be together, as it makes it easier for readers. A good example is Cheesecake. We have both baked and uncooked cheesecakes, but the article covers both, even if they are made differently because it is easier for readers. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge – Per WP:OVERLAP and WP:MERGECON. A hot dog bun is only used for hot dogs, so of course it should be explained there to serve our readers. FaviFake (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge The main hot dog bun article can obviously cover notable variants in it without the need for separate articles, which serves readers worse by splitting up and duplicating information. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge I agree with @FaviFake's reasoning. SupermarketCake (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge Per WP:OVERLAP as a WP:ATD Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Hot dog bun via WP:OVERLAP no need for a separate article. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:34, 20 June 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.

Xinjiang Wars

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

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

"Xinjiang Wars" appears to be an unreliably sourced or originally-coined neologism. There were numerous rebellions (common termage) and uprisings in Xinjiang in the 1930s and 1940s, but they are not collectively grouped together as the "Xinjiang Wars" by scholars as they each had different motivations and nuances.

The only citation offered does not mention a single conflict listed in this list/disambiguation article, and the authors are military historians but not scholars of China or Central Asia. In regard to "Xinjiang Wars", the citation given states:

Xinjiang has been ruled by China since the 18th century, but Chinese rule has been viewed as occupation by many Uighurs, leading to the Xinjiang wars in the early and mid-20th century. The uprising during the Chinese Civil War culminated in the declaration of the East Turkestan Republic in 1949, supported by the Soviet Union, but Xinjiang became incorporated into Communist China later that year when Mao Zedong founded the People's Republic of China.

Given the factual error in the sentence that immediately follows the mention of "Xinjiang Wars", this source alone cannot be treated as authoritative on whether such a term exists, although again the grouping of conflicts is not verified by the source in the first place. (The Second East Turkestan Republic (ETR) was declared in 1944, not 1949. 1949 was the year the ETR/ETR's successor, depending on who you ask, was dissolved.) Yue🌙 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and China. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Rename List of separatist uprisings in Xinjiang (conflicts/or other term that is agreed upon), or something like that as this seems to be the nominator's sole or main concern, not the validity of the list as such.--~2026-34615-72 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I oppose retaining Xinjiang Wars as a redirect because it is not a widely-used term for any grouping verified by reliable sources, and definitely not the list given. The source given is obviously not using "Xinjiang wars" as a proper noun or formal/specific term (the capitalisation implying such). The uprisings of the 1930s have no direct connection to the Ili Rebellion of the 1940s, the most significant connection being the latter was inspired in part by the former. A list of uprisings in Xinjiang already exists as prose in East Turkestan independence movement and Xinjiang conflict. Yue🌙 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  To make a comparison for those unfamiliar with the wider topic's niche, it would be like having a list article titled American Wars with a list consisting solely of U.S. military interventions in Latin America in the early 20th century because one book says "Manifest Destiny led to the American wars in Latin America in the early 20th century." It wouldn't make sense to then propose that it be redirected to List of United States interventions in Latin America when Foreign interventions by the United States already exists. Yue🌙 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it would make a lot of sense. You say "A list of uprisings in Xinjiang already exists as prose in East Turkestan independence movement and Xinjiang conflict.": except it's not a ....list. And this is clearly one. Hence a completely acceptable "fork". This is a brief and handy outline of Xinjiang uprisings and will very much help the reader. Although incorrect, the current title is a plausible search term (try). So that I don't find your reasons to oppose a Move convincing at all. The subject meets Wikipedia:NLIST, which you probably (did or) will admit. So that renaming the page seems perfectly reasonable. ~2026-34615-72 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NLIST states that "... a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines, and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." Which independent reliable sources discuss the current list/scope as a group or set? The one citation provided does not, but the list does not have to remain as it is.

  I thought of expanding the list (including most of Category:Xinjiang conflict) and proposing a move to List of armed conflicts in Xinjiang, but the problem is regardless of whatever description is chosen (i.e. armed conflicts, rebellions, uprisings, unrest, etc.), at least a few reliable sources would be required to authoritatively determine the criteria for what is included. For example, are instances of sectarian violence or attacks targeting civilians an "armed conflict" or "uprising"? Sources often differ on how to describe particular events related to Xinjiang; it's why the Xinjiang conflict was a contentious topic previously.

  Ideally there would be reliable sources that give a list or criteria for a list, and the scope of the new list article would match accordingly. However, no editor has provided one since 2010.

  This is a bit nitpicky, but I wouldn't be opposed to Xinjiang wars redirecting to a new list or Xinjiang conflict, but I oppose the retention of Xinjiang Wars because it implies it is an established term, which it is not. Yue🌙 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as the term "Xinjiang Wars" is purely WP:OR and is not used by WP:BESTSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Even if renaming the article could have made sense, it would still require WP:TNT. NavjotSR (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The title is an invented term that violates WP:OR. The only source provided does not use "Xinjiang Wars" as an official name, and it contains clear mistakes about history. Staticspector (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:54, 20 June 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.

Okyay Kaynak

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Turkey, and United States of America. Kadı Message 19:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination. One of a spate of recent nominations by nominators ignorant of the fact that we have a separate notability guideline WP:PROF whose criteria are not related to GNG and not based on independent secondary sourcing. As a Fellow of IEEE he passes WP:PROF#C3; this is one of the examples of a passing fellowship specifically called out in WP:PROF. Additionally his named chair is likely to pass #C5, his presidency of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society makes a strong case for #C6 (despite it being a suborganization of IEEE), his multiple editor-in-chief positions give him a clear case for #C8, his membership in the Turkish Academy of Sciences is another pass of #C3, and his heavy citation counts give him a pass of #C1. Any one of these would be sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per David Eppstein's reasoning -- suggest that nominator withdraw this errant nomination. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein, @Mscuthbert: Thank you for expressing your opinion. I am withdrawing the nomination. Kadı Message 04:43, 14 June 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.

Onur Mutlu

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Promotional article created by an user which has CoI with Onur Mutlu. Kadı Message 19:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Computing, Turkey, and United States of America. Kadı Message 19:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination. One of a spate of recent nominations by nominators ignorant of the fact that we have a separate notability guideline WP:PROF whose criteria are not related to GNG and not based on independent secondary sourcing. Massive citation counts give him a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and ACM Fellow and IEEE Fellow is a double pass of #C3. Any of these would be enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - agree with David's assessment above. Plus, Onur Mutlu has a *very* high h-index of 141 on Google Scholar (with 68000 citations). His Scopus h-index is also high: 101 (with 35,086 citations). All of these are exceptional and demonstrate that he meets WP:NACADEMIC#C1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" + "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 21:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein, @Chao Garden: Thank you for expressing your opinion. I am withdrawing the nomination. Kadı Message 04:44, 14 June 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.

Budget Host

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP Bryce M (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Texas. Bryce M (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Jakle, John A.; Sculle, Keith A.; Rogers, Jefferson S. (1996). The Motel in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 148–149, 213, 215. ISBN 0-8018-5383-4. Retrieved 2026-06-07 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes on page 148–149: "The niche vacated by Superior Motels has encouraged the development of at least two recent referral chains, each focused on the "economy" market. Budget Host was organized in 1976, with 57 members controlling nearly 3,000 guest rooms. The chain's brown and yellow logo features the outline of an old-fashioned gas lamp and the name Budget Host in bold letters. The chain started in Missouri and Kansas and spread both east and west. In 1993 it had 156 members, with New England, the South, and the Pacific Coast noticeably underrepresented. The purpose of the organization, like that of Best Western, was to give independent operators brand identification. The referral-chain idea continues to attract promoters. Independent Motels of America (IMA) organized only in 1982. "Friendly, Clean, Comfortable" was the chain's slogan. Its logo comprised a yellow outline map of the coterminous United States with "IMA" in bold red lettering. Headquartered at Winner, South Dakota, the chain is currently concentrated in the northern Great Plains and the northern Middle West, although recent promotion has focused on California."

     The book notes on pages 213 and 215: "Unlike Red Roof Inns and Microtel, which are latter-day ownership chains, Budget Host Inns revives the old referral chain idea. Established in 1976, Budget Host was intended to link older, independent, full-service motels that wanted to target the budget market. One of the chain's founders, Ray Sawyer, was previously editor of Motel/Motor Inn Journal. Originally called the Tourist Court Journal, this trade magazine long promoted the interests of the industry's independent operators. In 1993 there were 156 participating Budget Host members. Budget Host served to complement the Best Western chain, accepting independent motels that were unwilling or unable to meet the requirements of the much stronger referral system. Budget Host provided independents with a mechanism for confronting the Motel 6s, the Red Roof Inns, and the Super 8s."

  2. Troy, Timothy N. (1994-08-15). "Budget Host cultivates quality". Hotel & Motel Management. Vol. 209, no. 14. Factiva hmmg000020011029dq8f00072.

     The article notes: "Budget Host's total number of hotels, once as high as 213, today stands at 169 properties. That's a net loss of 44 properties. But interestingly, calls to the Budget Host central-reservation system were up 21 percent in 1993. In 1994's first quarter, that call volume jumped another 40 percent over '93 figures, and in May, it jumped more than 50 percent over the year before. ... Because it is a membership chain, Budget Host's guidelines for quality differ from most others in the industry. The chain encourages independence in its properties, yet ties together certain elements--such as signage and collateral materials (a minimum of six in each property)--to offer a consistent, identifiable package to travelers. Budget Host properties, found in 39 states and Canada, vary in size from 325 guestrooms to 10 guestrooms, and are located in towns from Southgate, Calif. (in greater Los Angeles) to Kill Devil Hills, N.C. A common tie among the properties is that each is in a price-sensitive market."

  3. Watkins, Ed (2002-11-01). "A vote for the little guy". Lodging Hospitality. Vol. 58, no. 15. Penton. ISSN 0148-0766. Factiva lh00000020021208dyb100002.

     The article notes: "t's the lodging industry's "little engine that could." Budget Host Inns, the 27-year-old, Texas-based referral group isn't the biggest brand in the business (160 properties and 6,200 rooms), but it continues to stand firm with a core group of long-time members and an established set of operating principles. ... At minimum, Budget Host properties get a surprise visit once a year from a QA inspector. Properties with histories of quality problems or guest complaints are likely to get more frequent visits. A member property with deficiencies gets 90 days to fix up or face termmination. ... According to independent research by HVS International, the cost for a 100-- room property to affiliate with the chain is 7/10 of one percent of revenues over a 10-year period, well below other referral groups and traditional franchise chains."

  4. "Budget Host celebrates birthday". Lodging Hospitality. Vol. 56, no. 2. Penton. 2000-02-01. ISSN 0148-0766. Factiva lh00000020010808dw210000s.

     The article notes: "Budget Host International, the economy lodging referral chain, turns 25 this year. Lodging veteran Ray Sawyer, along with the late Ed Semmler, founded the Arlington, TX-based chain in 1975, successfully carving its niche within the economy sector similar to that held by Best Western in mid-priced lodging."

  5. "Budget Host Company profile". Hotel & Motel Management. 1996-08-12. p. 51. Factiva hmmg000020011014ds8c0005c.

     The article notes: " Budget Host International is an Arlington, Texas-based referral chain of affiliated inns that must meet high quality-assurance standards. Eighty percent of the inns are AAA-rated, high among chains, particularly in the budget niche, and provide economy rates for their respective market areas. Budget Host was cofounded in April 1975 by Ray Sawyer, a former lodging-trade magazine editor, and the late Ed Semmler, a former executive vice president of Master Hosts Motor Hotels, as a referral network alternative for independents amid a new budget boom occurring in motel franchising. Budget Host began operations in March 1976, and in early 1977, Sawyer, Semmler and the late Lon Robinson, owner of the Caravan Motor Hotels of Texas and first chairman of the network's advisory board, formed a private corporation, Host Associates Inc., to operate the chain."

  6. Roquemore, Larry (1977-09-02). "'Budget' sweeter in motel language". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Retrieved 2026-06-07 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Since it began operation in March 1976 as a subsidiary of Host Associates Inc., Budget Host Inns has registered 57 motels on its roster. Included in that figure of motels in 24 states and Mexico are 20 new members signed on during the past three months. Headquarters for the firm is Fort Worth's Caravan Motor Hotel, 2601 Jacksboro Highway, a 72-unit facility which joined Budget Host Inns in March. ... Budget Host Inns has no reservations about its new reservation system. Instead of taking room bookings through computers and toll-free WATS lines, motels of the Budget referral chain rely on their guests to make reservations by means of a 75-cent rebate plan. It works like this: If a customer wants to reserve a room in a member motel, the traveler places the telephone call at his own expense and is credited with 75 cents at the motel where he makes the reservation."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Budget Host to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: This motel franchise chain used to be much bigger in the Eastern United States, but now there are no franchisees within an hour's drive of New York City. That might explain the paucity of coverage in Mainstream media. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This chain is quite notable, but the article about it could use some expansion, citing reliable sources. TH1980 (talk) 00:55, 14 June 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.

Randy Villegas

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

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

I propose redirecting to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 22 because he fails WP:NPOL. He's not notable outside of his current run for office. If he wins the general election he will be notable, but a redirect should be done for now. Marquardtika (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect. He obviously does not pass WP:NPOL. I found this AfD through the deletion discussion on academics and educators, but as a community college professor without the high citation counts needed for WP:NPROF#C1 I don't see any alternative pathway to notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect He does not meet WP:NPOL at the moment, and most of the article/sourcing discusses his campaign. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect Does not presently meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL, currently significant coverage for the subject of the article is about one event thus meets WP:BLP1E therefore the article should be a redirect for now to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 22 as suggested by AfD creator. If the candidate becomes an elected official at the national level, they will be considered presumed notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 22 because page does not meet WP:NPOL. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:37, 20 June 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.

Ulaan Tolgoi mine

Ulaan Tolgoi mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can find no evidence that such a mine exists. I see evidence of a lease to exploit coal resources in the area, but not a niobium mine. The only ref cited is dead, but the Wayback archive (search for "Ulaantolgoi") shows that it's just a description of metalliferous deposits and doesn't support the existence of a mine. This isn't the only time the article's creator has fashioned a mine article out of vague references to potential resources; see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranos mine. Deor (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Only found a handful of publications using Google Scholar and GEOREF that reference Ulaan Tolgoi (and Ulan-Tologoi) related to uranium and rare earth mineralization, the Ulaan Tolgoi granite, and / or the Ulaan Tolgoi intrusion. Nothing can be found of a reference to either an active mine or anything notable enough for a Wikipedia article. For example:

Dostal, J. and Gerel, O., 2022. Occurrences of niobium and tantalum mineralization in Mongolia. Minerals, 12(12), no.1529. Paul H. (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Did some googling cannot find any sources that confirms the mine exists. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 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.

Orbitals (album)

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

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

The only reviews with significant coverage that I could find besides Allmusic were made by users. The album seems to fail WP:NALBUM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - It was a 2003 release without any modern reissue/deluxe edition etc, so most reviews would likely be locked away in print magazines, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the Allmusic review, there's also a dedicated Melodic review, both reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried looking there as well and couldn't find anything, so, if people can find something, they should of course bring it up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I would add Sputnik Music review and this should be ok according to the Recordings criteria. SLIDD (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Don't add that review which is unprofessionally written as well as unreliable per WP:USERG. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah. SLIDD (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sputnikmusic staff reviews can be reliable. Geschichte (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Sergecross73. Satisfies GNG. In addition to the AllMusic and Melodic reviews, another album review Christopher R Weingarten, "Under the Radar", CMJ New Music Report, (vol 75, no 12), no 815, 26 May 2003, p 36. There's other coverage in Google Books, including coverage in Spin. James500 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. This makes more sense. It was released on a major label in the early 2000s, it was bound to receive coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to the band per WP:PAGEDECIDE - they only made one album and there is not that much coverage that two separate articles should be maintained. Very clearly the same situation as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The First Fat Truckers Album Is for Sale. Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Acroma (band) makes the most sense since the album does not pass WP:NALBUM. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:45, 20 June 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.

Dražen Anđušić

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

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

He played 103 mins in the Serbian SuperLiga but there is no evidence of a WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC pass. I searched "Dražen Anđušić", "Dražen Andjušić" and "Дражен Анђушић" but found no decent coverage of the footballer of this name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – The article only provided primary sources. By the way, the nominator searched for his name in Cyrillic (Дражен Анђушић) just because he played in Serbia? lol. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BASICSPORT and page is poorly sourced. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails in GNG as well as WP:SPORTCRIT. Found no SIGCOV in additional searches. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:38, 20 June 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.

Edin Mujković

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

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

His professional career lasted only 26 mins and I found no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC when searching in Serbian Cyrillic or otherwise. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – No sources at all except external links. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks any sourcing, therefore, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and, in this case, also WP:SPORTSCRIT Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced BLP. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete poorly sourced non-notable player. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails in GNG as well as WP:SPORTCRIT. Found no SIGCOV in additional searches. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:39, 20 June 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.

LOL: Slutty Bass

LOL: Slutty Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, unable to find any significant coverage on the topic. Redirect to Tory Lanez discography. मल्ल (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. मल्ल (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Best I could find was a review from RapReviews: . RedShellMomentum 23:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tory Lanez since page fails WP:NALBUM. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Adam Honoré

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

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

Fails GNG. Sources are either routine giving coverage to other subjects related to him. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and United States of America. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep as I believe it meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE due to winning the Obie award. It is borderline GNG though.Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets ANYBIO with sustained achievement Obie and Tony nominations, likely meets CREATIVE as well.—BrechtBro (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related AfD discussions. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:CREATIVE considering he has won a prestigious award. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:08, 20 June 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.

AD 20

AD 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging articles AD 20 to AD 29 (AD 20, AD 21, AD 22, AD 23, AD 24, AD 25, AD 26, AD 27, AD 28, AD 29) to 20s. The 20s article is merely a conglomeration of all the individual year articles transcluded into it; many of the individual year articles are just stubs. A similar merge happened earlier this month, with a debate at AfD having the articles AD 10 to AD 19 merged into the 10s article. The 20s article is slightly shorter than the 10s article I believe, so if the previous merge was acceptable, then this merge should be acceptable as well. Same possibly goes for all the decades in the first century, as the previous AfD discussion suggested. Nevertheless, I still wanted to check with an AfD. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Withdrawn by nominator per WP:BOLDMERGE as suggested by fellow editors. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• . The 20s article is slightly shorter than the 10s article I believe, so if the previous merge was acceptable, then this merge should be acceptable as well.
  ... Then why did you nominate them at AfD? FaviFake (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  @FaviFake given the sheer size of the merge I wasn't sure if a WP:BOLDMERGE would be appropriate, and I wanted to be sure that there wouldn't be any opposition, if any. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Royz-vi Tsibele Sure, but you can rest assured this is appropriate. The previous AfD received 6 !votes to merge and not even one opposer. The "size of the merge" is actually small because all those little pages are small stubs. I recommend you withdraw your nomination and merge those pages boldly. If you want to take it slow you can merge just 10 or 20 pages a day. Maybe link to these two AfDs in your edit summaries there shouldn't be any issues. And if there are, then you can open a bundled nomination here. FaviFake (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  @FaviFake Will do. Thanks for the tip! Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• If the consensus was to merge the 10s, then it would make sense to merge the 20s as well. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:05, 14 June 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.

Tetraoctagonal tiling

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

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

Tetraoctagonal tiling:

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

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

Snub tetraoctagonal tiling:

Snub tetraoctagonal tiling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Truncated tetraoctagonal tiling:

Truncated tetraoctagonal tiling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Rhombitetraoctagonal tiling:

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

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

No evidence of coverage of any depth in reliable sources. It is not possible to write this article without being full of OR and SYNTH. This appears to be a neologism after Richard Klitzing and Jonathan Bowers' naming scheme. Google Scholar does not return any results for "tetraoctagonal" in relation to tilings. ^{(Though I did find a result about crystallography that did not discuss the tiling.)} And a Google web search only shows up self-published sites, and Wikipedia mirrors and forks. For the same reasons I am also nominating Truncated tetraoctagonal tiling, Snub tetraoctagonal tiling, and Rhombitetraoctagonal tiling for deletion. SVG-image-maker (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related AfD discussions. SVG-image-maker (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons as the other ones, and I would suggest sending the rest of these through PROD first before submitting AfDs. As discussed at the other related listings, having dozens of AfDs with the same rationales is going to be cumbersome/annoying for people to keep up with. I think it's sufficiently demonstrated that articles of this type are suspect per the (emerging but likely solidified) consensus, if editors are actually attached to them for some reason they are welcome to unPROD them. RaisedArizona (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as in all the other examples. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Another non-notable tiling article. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:09, 20 June 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.

Laxmi Krishna

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

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

Possible paid promotional article with WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Most of the references are paid. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Karnataka. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete:No sources found for reliable coverage in cursory searches, It clearly fails WP:GNG and also WP:BLP. AristocrSirr22 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for your review. The page is meant to be strictly objective, and I am happy to remove any wording that feels promotional. Regarding her notable work, she has worked in several prominent movies, which I have supported using independent, reliable news sources rather than self-published material or press releases. I have included links from respected outlets like https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2025/Nov/11/dripping-in-the-70s and https://edtimes.in/laxmi-krishna-a-name-to-reckon-with-in-the-world-of-fashion/ that feature her film career. Could you please take a look at these specific links to see if they satisfy the guidelines, or let me know how I can better format them to meet WP:GNG? Sunithashankar (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable costume designer from India. Promotional article and sources are not reliable. Fails WP:GNG. Last of The Time (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Note: this editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for your review. The page is meant to be strictly objective, and I am happy to remove any wording that feels promotional. Regarding her notable work, she has worked in several prominent movies, which I have supported using independent, reliable news sources rather than self-published material or press releases. I have included links from respected outlets like https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2025/Nov/11/dripping-in-the-70s and https://edtimes.in/laxmi-krishna-a-name-to-reckon-with-in-the-world-of-fashion/ that feature her film career. Could you please take a look at these specific links to see if they satisfy the guidelines, or let me know how I can better format them to meet WP:GNG? Sunithashankar (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Pure promotion, supported by churnalism and passing mentions; I'm getting strong 'famous for being famous' vibes, and Wikipedia should play no part in such vanispamcruftisement campaigns. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:PROMO I searched and there are no secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:12, 20 June 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.

Md. Sabur Khan

Md. Sabur Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article about a non notable subject. Sources are paid. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Bangladesh. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Keep - The person is a highly notable and known from Bangladesh. He is the founder and chairman of Daffodil International University (DIU), one of the top-ranked private universities in the country and international education sector, and founder chairman of Daffodil Group, one of the prominent education and Tech group in Bangladesh. These roles establish strong inherent notability under WP:NBIOG and WP:CORP.

  The article is currently being rewritten to remove any promotional language and make it more neutral and encyclopedic. The sources used include well-known independent newspapers such as The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, and The Business Standard, which are reliable and not affiliated with the subject. I would appreciate it if other editors could help improve the writing style, refine the wording, and ensure the article meets highest standards. ~~~~ MysticPen007 (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I can only assume this is the same subject as the first nomination from 2018 (which ended in deletion), as well as previous separate A7 and G11 speedy deletions in 2012. It is definitely the same subject (but different content and main contributor) as Draft:Md. Sabur Khan, which itself started out in mainspace in 2025. (No opinion at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete not seeing that he has any significant coverage to establish notability under WP:NACADEMIC. Almost all citations are Bangladeshi, nothing international. I found 2 people with this name on Google Scholar, and both have very weak stats. I would suggest that if none of these are him, the article creator also create and link to the Google Scholar page.Mercedesnun (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• I believe, this page requires no deletion because the information is true. We just need to update the way the information is so that it doesn't sound like resume, sounds like biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuhenadhk (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC) — Abuhenadhk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep – While the article certainly needs cleanup and a more encyclopedic tone, I don't believe deletion is the right outcome. Md. Sabur Khan is more than simply the founder of a university; he has held several notable leadership positions, including President of DCCI and Bangladesh Computer Samity, and has been involved in national and international organizations related to ICT and higher education. There appears to be sufficient independent coverage to support notability. The article can and should be improved, but its current quality should not be confused with the notability of the subject.0ximjub43r (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - article needs serious tidying but there is some evidence of GNG. REVVAKKA (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Not even close to meeting GNG. None of the sources independently cover the subject in details. Those advocating for a keep, please provide more policy based reasonings instead of listing his works. And do present your best WP:THREE sources. Otherwise.....all the references are either about the company or if it's about him, then they are just blatant PROMO stuff, PAID articles and ROUTINE appointment reportage. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete although material may appear in a reliable source, that will not in and of itself make that material automically notable. Reliable sources print interviews; consensus is that interviews generally cannot be used to determine notability. Reliable sources reprint press releases, or use them as the basis of articles. However, without independent analysis, where there is simply the verbatim repetition or paraphrashing of press releases, this does not constitute suitable material to form the basis of an article. This article is simply an agglomeration of press releases regurgitated in local press and material published by organisations related to, set up by, or controlled by the subject. Fails the WP:GNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:03, 21 June 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.

Mainghein

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

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

Unable to find any source that claims this is a village, so fails WP:V as a village (usual entries in old gazetteers that don't distinguish between villages and things like temporary huts).

I have found a few passing mentions in old (~1960 and earlier) sources of a "Mainghein Reserve Forest" at this location, what I have found I don't think is enough for a WP:GNG pass, however it might be an old name and I would appreciate a second look in case we can find some decent modern sourcing, perhaps using a modern name. Giulio 12:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Myanmar. Giulio 12:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete cannot find any similar possible village in the MIMU pcodes. Nothing even close (i.e. no Ma/Mai/Mi + H) in all of Kachin state. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPLACE and google searches don't turn anything new up. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:15, 20 June 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.

J. Nandakumar

J. Nandakumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consists mostly primary sources and has no significant coverage. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This article about an individual does not meet any of our guidelines for notability. Aneirinn (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete:Fails GNG, BLP and NPOV.AristocrSirr22 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NBIO just not a ton of solid sourcing. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:18, 20 June 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.

Mir Jawad Zar Khan

Mir Jawad Zar Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional and most of the sources are either paid or routine. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO just not a ton of secondary sourcing. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 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.

Next Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election

Next Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose draftifying because, no details specific to this election are available yet, WP:TOOSOON for an article already. Vestrian24Bio 11:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Rajasthan. Vestrian24Bio 11:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify per nom, and similar to other similar AfDs on regional legislature elections in India. Precedent in Wikipedia has been to keep articles on "next" elections (as recurring events, they are almost certain to take place and would clear WP:CRYSTALBALL without issue). However, a common requisite has been for at least a minimal amount of information on the specific election to exist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Falkland Islands general election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Sabah state election or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election (3rd nomination)). This "minimal amount of information" has frequently been opinion polls or at least some coverage on the possibility of the election being held earlier for any circumstances (deadlocks in government negotiations, discussions on a snap election, etc.). This one clears neither of these, and seems currently established as some form of template for starting the article. Should be moved into draft space to see whether it can be improved, or nominated for outright deletion after the regular six-month period. Impru20^talk 08:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify for now: I think its an instance of WP:TOOSOON AristocrSirr22 (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify — textbook TOOSOON/CRYSTAL. The election is over two years out, every schedule and projection table is empty or TBD, and the sources are just politicians speculating about 2028 - not coverage of the election itself. The topic will obviously be notable eventually, so this should sit in draft space until there's real content to build on. EmilyR34 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftifyper WP:CRYSTALBALL just too far in the future for sig cov. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 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.

Next Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

Next Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose draftifying because, no details specific to this election are available yet, WP:TOOSOON for an article already. Vestrian24Bio 11:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Vestrian24Bio 11:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify per nom, and similar to other similar AfDs on regional legislature elections in India. Precedent in Wikipedia has been to keep articles on "next" elections (as recurring events, they are almost certain to take place and would clear WP:CRYSTALBALL without issue). However, a common requisite has been for at least a minimal amount of information on the specific election to exist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Falkland Islands general election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Sabah state election or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election (3rd nomination)). This "minimal amount of information" has frequently been opinion polls or at least some coverage on the possibility of the election being held earlier for any circumstances (deadlocks in government negotiations, discussions on a snap election, etc.). This one clears neither of these, and seems currently established as some form of template for starting the article. Should be moved into draft space to see whether it can be improved, or nominated for outright deletion after the regular six-month period. Impru20^talk 08:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify — textbook TOOSOON/CRYSTAL. The election is over two years out, every schedule and projection table is empty or TBD, and the sources are just politicians speculating about 2028 - not coverage of the election itself. The topic will obviously be notable eventually, so this should sit in draft space until there's real content to build on. EmilyR34 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 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.

Next Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly election

Next Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose draftifying because, no details specific to this election are available yet, WP:TOOSOON for an article already. Vestrian24Bio 10:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Chhattisgarh. Vestrian24Bio 10:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify per nom, and similar to other similar AfDs on regional legislature elections in India. Precedent in Wikipedia has been to keep articles on "next" elections (as recurring events, they are almost certain to take place and would clear WP:CRYSTALBALL without issue). However, a common requisite has been for at least a minimal amount of information on the specific election to exist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Falkland Islands general election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Sabah state election or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election (3rd nomination)). This "minimal amount of information" has frequently been opinion polls or at least some coverage on the possibility of the election being held earlier for any circumstances (deadlocks in government negotiations, discussions on a snap election, etc.). This one clears neither of these, and seems currently established as some form of template for starting the article. Should be moved into draft space to see whether it can be improved, or nominated for outright deletion after the regular six-month period. Impru20^talk 08:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify — textbook TOOSOON/CRYSTAL. The election is over two years out, every schedule and projection table is empty or TBD, and the sources are just politicians speculating about 2028 - not coverage of the election itself. The topic will obviously be notable eventually, so this should sit in draft space until there's real content to build on. EmilyR34 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 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.

Next Telangana Legislative Assembly election

Next Telangana Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose draftifying because, no details specific to this election are available yet, WP:TOOSOON for an article already. Vestrian24Bio 10:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Telangana. Vestrian24Bio 10:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify per nom, and similar to other similar AfDs on regional legislature elections in India. Precedent in Wikipedia has been to keep articles on "next" elections (as recurring events, they are almost certain to take place and would clear WP:CRYSTALBALL without issue). However, a common requisite has been for at least a minimal amount of information on the specific election to exist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Falkland Islands general election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Sabah state election or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election (3rd nomination)). This "minimal amount of information" has frequently been opinion polls or at least some coverage on the possibility of the election being held earlier for any circumstances (deadlocks in government negotiations, discussions on a snap election, etc.). This one clears neither of these, and seems currently established as some form of template for starting the article. Should be moved into draft space to see whether it can be improved, or nominated for outright deletion after the regular six-month period. Impru20^talk 08:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify — textbook TOOSOON/CRYSTAL. The election is over two years out, every schedule and projection table is empty or TBD, and the sources are just politicians speculating about 2028 - not coverage of the election itself. The topic will obviously be notable eventually, so this should sit in draft space until there's real content to build on. EmilyR34 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 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.

SS Toledo (1854)

SS Toledo (1854) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I doubt that this article meets WP:GNG. Other than a few scattered references in historical documents, there aren't many sources covering this vessel. Only Wisconsin Shipwrecks provides a somewhat comprehensive overview of this ship's history. Additionally, I have been unable to find any sources corroborating some of the claims made within the article, notably "On 2 August 1963, two scuba divers explored the wrecksite and recovered several artifacts."

I propose deleting. Akaza ^[talk] 22:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - contemporary newspaper coverage can be found at the Library of Congress website. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep due to contemporary newspaper coverage being available which establishes this vessel's notability. TH1980 (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've looked. Aside from the generic name making tracking articles extremely difficult, I've only found one or two related to the loss. I doubt that constitutes notability. Akaza ^[talk] 23:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe merging and redirecting to List of shipwrecks in Lake Michigan would be a better idea. Akaza ^[talk] 16:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:37, 13 June 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.

Sub communione

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

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

This reads like a WP:DICDEF. The sources are not used to cite to the meaning of the phrase itself, but to where the phrase can be found: the first one is a Spotify link, the second one is an IMSLP score. Neither are good sources. It's not notable enough as its own phrase for an article, most of the mentions of this phrase is about its use as the subtitle of Bach's chorale prelude. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 10:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 10:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG, with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and the Internet Archive. There are entire periodical articles about this, such as . There is an article in the new Grove encyclopedia: . Searches for "sub communione"+"communion" and "musica sub communione" and "musica sub communionem" bring up a lot of coverage. A few random examples in Google Books would be . This expression referred to music played during the communion, and music played during the communion is the sort of topic that is always going to satisfy GNG. The expression "musica sub communione" is a latin expression that means the same thing as eg "communion music" in English and "kommunionsmusiken" in German etc. And when you search for expressions like that, you get even more coverage. A page move might be appropriate, since there appears to be more than one name. James500 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and expand using the sources identified above such as multiple academic papers, Grove encyclopedia coverage and other book sources. The topic passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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

List of asexual identities

List of asexual identities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging because of the discussion at the RM for this article that was just closed. The reason for merging is that the notability of this topic as a stand-alone list is dubious, and that the currently tiny section Asexuality#Microlabels can be expanded to give sufficient coverage of the topic. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose On the deletion discussion for caligosexual, there was a consensus to make an article on the forms of asexuality instead of making a page for specific ones. 🏳️‍🌈 DarknessGoth777 (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nominator's rationale. It's just a list, it can be merged per WP:PAGEDECIDE FaviFake (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge The real things are listed at Asexuality#See_also. The things on this list only referenced to a woman's book, are nonsense. Dream Focus 10:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  The see also doesn’t talk about forms of asexual 🏳️‍🌈 they say: * Asociality – Lack of motivation to engage in social interaction

  • Virginity – State of a person who has never engaged in sexual intercourse
  • Antisexualism – Hostility towards sexuality
  • Incel – Online subculture
  • List of people on the asexual spectrum
  • Platonic love – Non-sexual love
  • Sexless marriage – Marital union with little or no sexual activity between the spouses
  • Sexual anorexia – Informal term for sexual aversion; a loss of "appetite" for romantic-sexual interaction
  • Supernormal stimulus – Concept in biology and psychology; a form of non-sexual stimulus, as opposed to libido
  • Hypersexuality – Excessive arousal and interest in sex
  • Timeline of asexual history

  Also asexuality is a blanket term and there’s people who feel they are the terms that the article mentioned, myself included. This psychology article says that asexuality is a blanket term/spectrum: https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/the-q-in-lgbtq-queer-questioning DarknessGoth777 (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge - there's a conversation to be had at some point about this being its own (non-list) article, but I think it should be merged first so folks can reach a consensus about the sourcing for specific examples. As it stands, this will compress down to a section just fine without losing surrounding context - about a paragraph can cover all this information.RaisedArizona (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per my comments at RM. The category is poorly defined and its notability has not been established. The coverage is scant (and needs a trim) and is partially duplicative of the content at Asexuality § Microlabels so WP:PAGEDECIDE applies regardless of other notability considerations. The RM discussion is worth a read as it identifies a number of problems with the article. It will need clean up, before or after merger. Some of these labels and identities are not inherently under the asexual umbrella although a person who is asexual may also hold one of these other identities. Some that are not inherently asexual may still have some 'special affinity' or may be overrepresented among asexuals (or vice-versa); if that is the case, it should be clarified with adequate sourcing in the article. Some of these are rather obscure and may not warrant a mention at all. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge into the Asexuality page, as part the other comments by the OP, and those by FaviFake, Dream Focus, RaisedArizona, and Myceteae. As for what DarknessGoth777 says, the AfD discussion for Caligosexual did NOT have the "consensus to make an article on the forms of asexuality instead of making a page for specific ones." In fact, all the closing admin said was: "The result was delete." Nothing else was stated. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, the close did not demonstrate any such consensus. My own read of the full discussion (which I did not participate in) is that some editors wanted it to be redirected and covered on another page and several editors explicitly opposed this. Nothing in the Caligosexual can be interpreted as consensus to create a standalone list such as this. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. "List of" articles should normally be for lists of things that have articles and most of these don't. The list is short, so there is no argument for separation based on size. Also, it is unclear how many of the list items are distinct identities and how many are minor variations in terminology. We don't want a list that mixes up distinct identities, that are widely accepted, at least within the asexual community, with stuff that one or two people made up to describe themselves. (I don't mean that to be as mean as it sounds! There is a tendency in some LGBTQ circles to break up genders and sexualities into a multidimensional space with almost infinite granularity, MOGAI being the most well known example. That's a completely legitimate way for people to explore their possibilities which some people find helpful. I've got absolutely no time for the people who make fun of them for doing that!) These very granular identities generally don't have encyclopaedic value except when they are taken up more widely, not necessarily by mainstream society but at least within LGBTQ circles. I would question how many in the asexual community recognise all these terms. Merging this to the main article and giving these identities as a non-exhaustive list of examples of asexuality microlabels seems like the best way to retain this information in an encyclopaedic way. I wonder if an article on microlabels might be worth creating. I don't know how whether there is sufficient source material for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge in agreement with most of the prior statements. Most of the preexisting articles on asexuality, graysexuality, etc all link to each other rather than this list, so having it in the microlabels section of the asexuality page would work better. In addition, some of the terms on the list are already defined in other articles. The graysexuality page already has a definition for Fraysexuality, and links to Demisexuality, Fictosexuality, and Aegosexuality.

In my experience as someone on the asexual spectrum and in online circles, some of the terms are used, but I've yet to see enough academic sources on them to justify a separate list. I agree with DanielRigal on the idea that a separate article for microlabels might be worth creating, but for now merging this list with the asexuality page makes the most sense relevance-wise Churchcoyote (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Why did the Fraysexual and aceflux articles get merged to Graysexual? 🏳️‍🌈 It’s not the same things DarknessGoth777 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This should really be discussed elsewhere so we don't get too off-topic here. I wasn't part of these discussions but here they are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aceflux and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraysexuality. Aceflux was closed as delete but then an editor recreated it as a redirect to Gray asexuality, where it is currently undefined so something should be done about that… —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

…Although to bring us back on topic, merging this article with Asexuality#Microlabels would give us a place to retarget the redirects FraysexualFraysexual and AcefluxAceflux. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea 👍 DarknessGoth777 (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual orientations. Dudzcar (talk) 21:03, 16 June 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.

Dash Social

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

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

Typical corporate spam, no idea how this made it past AfC. It was prodded by K.e.coffman but the prod was removed by the author. MediaKyle (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Keep. I don't think "corporate spam" really fits. The article sticks to sourced facts about the company. And even if some wording could be tidied up, that's a cleanup matter (WP:ATD), not a reason to delete. The real question is WP:NCORP, and that's what I suggest to focus on.

  On that point, the company clearly meets the bar. Two strong examples of independent, in-depth coverage are The Globe and Mail (2019) and Fashionista (2014); both substantial pieces about the company itself. There's also good coverage in Adweek, Entrevestor, BetaKit and others, and more beyond that, spanning over a decade. So this isn't a borderline case on sourcing. Happy to help clean up the tone if that's a concern, but that's an argument for editing, not deletion. CarlosAndrésGL (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete -- Fails WP:NORG; sourcing is in passing / routine / rewarmed press releases / funding notices. The sources mentioned in this AfD as the best available do not indicate that the subject qualifies for inclusion at this time. For example, more than 50% of Globe & Mail's article are quotes and statements from the company executives: "Canadian company was close to shuttering. Then it came up with a brand new product", so there's no independent analysis there. The other source mentioned has this subheading: "new app Dash Hudson hopes to offer the next best thing"; this is about the org's hopes and dreams, indicating that it's WP:TOOSOON for a wikipedia article. None of the other sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  On Fashionista. The rejection rests on the subheading ("hopes to offer the next best thing"), but per WP:CORPDEPTH, "a headline or title focused on a trivial point does not prove that the rest of the source does not contain substantial coverage." The body is independent authorial analysis. Sherman describes the product in her own words, compares it to competitors (Liketoknow.it, Spring), and gives her own critical evaluation of its prospects. That's exactly the "original and independent opinion, analysis" WP:ORGIND calls for.

  On the Globe and Mail piece. The presence of executive quotes doesn't by itself disqualify a source under ORGIND. The test is whether there's independent authorial analysis, and there is: the reporter's framing, the verified company history, concrete growth figures, and independent VC commentary. A "more than 50% quotes" count isn't the standard the guideline sets. CarlosAndrésGL (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--TitCrisse (t•c) 17:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - From what I see, the company might meet WP:GNG as it meets the minimum requirement of two notable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. Both the sources seem to be independent to me.

~2026-33448-07 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NCORP and reads like WP:PROMO. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I found another source (1) and added it to the article. I agree that the case is ambiguous, but in my opinion it definitely passes WP:NCORP now. The article frames Dash Social's research findings as industry-wide facts and reports on them as newsworthy. And it's a byline publication, not a press release. CarlosAndrésGL (talk) 10:35, 19 June 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.

SelTrac

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

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

I propose redirecting to Moving block because the article subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, is largely unsourced, and mostly just lists systems which supposedly utilize it. It appears to just be largely WP:FANCRUFT. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, Software, and Transportation. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related articles since they also appear to be similar and share the same issues:

Cityflo 650 CBTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Trains and WikiProject Rapid transit have been notified of this discussion. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect all per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect all per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, this is the first of its kind. More important is that plenty of sources are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatVanHuis (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  @KatVanHuis Please ensure you sign your comments. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect all per nom. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The "installations" list might be fancruft, however User:Thryduulf mentioned earlier that the subject is at least mentioned in plenty of sources.1 KatVanHuis (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Take no speedy action I reiterate what I said when I deprodded this. I don't know whether this is independently notable but there is no shortage of sources that potentially contain significant coverage, those sources need to be evaluated to see whether they do or do not before answering the question. I will not have time to do that for at least several days and maybe not before this AfD expires. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 18 June 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.

Alexander Bothe

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Article was previously speedily deleted in July 2022 under A7 and G11 (see ). The current version still does not establish notability; all sources are from low‑authority, obscure websites (BBNTimes, Business Outstanders, Spero Magazine, The Hearup, etc.) that appear to be advertorial. No significant, independent, reliable coverage. Lone Wolf ^howl 08:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lone Wolf ^howl 08:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Artificial intelligence. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The available sources are insufficient to meet notability, and the references provided do not appear to be reliable enough to support this case. Last of The Time (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Missouri, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete the article. Unreliable sources. N3rsti (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - sources extremely dodgy. REVVAKKA (talk) 11:37, 16 June 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.

Mechanical network

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

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

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

Moved from Talk:Mechanical–electrical analogies § Merge suggestion

 – FaviFake (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I propose merging Mechanical Network into Mechanical–electrical analogies. This page already links to the mechanical network page, but its a stub. It also feels like the description of mechanical networks would work better as a subsection of this article BennBluee (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. Article is literally 1 paragraph. FaviFake (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge, I agree, this is a sensible merge target and the article makes no sense stand-alone. It still needs a reliable source or two, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 13 June 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.

Satnam Singh Mann

Satnam Singh Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

Moved from Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi Math § Satnam Singh Mann

 – FaviFake (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge Satnam Singh Mann into Mata Amritanandamayi Math

Can we merge this? Bearian (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge – Per WP:1EVENT, only notable for his death. FaviFake (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bihar, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge - poor guy did nothing notable except dying. Bearian (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge: He is only notable for his controversial death and aftermath it is best to merge this into the Math article, per WP:1EVENT and WP:BLP and GNG of course.AristocrSirr22 (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge The subject's death received notable coverage, but there does not appear to be significant evidence of notability beyond that event. Last of The Time (talk) 11:12, 13 June 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.

Victor Marx

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

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

Unelected political candidate not meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Note that one cited source is to Facebook and another is to his campaign page. Then there's this, this, and another link to the Colorado Secretary of State page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep/expand There are independent articles discussing Mr. Marx going back to 2016 as seen here. With additional articles relating to Mr. Marx appearing once again in 2018, 2019 and 2021 that can be found here, here, and here. With local news outlets outside of Colorado covering him in 2023 here. Through 2024 and 2025 Mr. Marx remained the topic of independent articles predating his bid for public office that I will list here link1 link2 link3 link4 link5 link6. It is my belief an argument could be made that this article does meet GNG guidelines on its own with the number of sources from various outlets covering Mr. Marx over the last decade. But with his bid for public office that has pushed him further into the public eye and does meet GNG guidelines. With that said, this articles does need a lot of work. The creator could have done more work at the beginning to avoid this conversation from being had. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• KEEP - EXPAND Marx is running for 2026 Governor in Colorado so he is definitely relevant. Since the election is 4 months away this is worthy of expanding.

Dd3r1n0 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)]

Comment simply being a candidate for office does not make someone immediately notable enough for an article as is covered in WP:NPOL. With that said, giving there are a steady stream of articles going back a decade that either discuss or involve him in some way I believe this article should stay. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete While Marx is a candidate for Governor of Colorado, he has recivied little press coverage unrelated to the election or prior the his campaign. The article should be deleted and brought back if he is elected or if he becomes notable in the press for something other than his campaign for governor. FoamingInDenver (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Marx has written two autobiographical books detailing his life, which can be presumed he wants everyone to buy and read, and has over 3M followers across social media. When you Google Victor Marx he is the first to appear, which is how I found he has also produced and starred in two biographical movies and has an IMDB page. The idea that he is not a known public figure or there is little interest in him is patently false. What is more likely, but which I cannot personally verify, is that Victor Marx and his publicists want to be the only ones able to write the narrative of Victor Marx and want to shut down the Wikipedia page about him because it is a place where facts can be publicly displayed that A) contradict the narrative he himself has published and/or B) cast a negative, but honest, light on his life that would hurt his political aspirations if people are able to see everything in one place and verify the contradictions themselves. ~2026-32234-83 (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I think that ThisUserIsTaken has shown there is enough coverage prior to the subject's campaign to merit an article. I do think content-wise, the article should largely focus on the subject's work rather than his political involvement (unless the subject wins in November). --Enos733 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, those primary sources are being used appropriately, and do not support contentious claims (therefore they pass Wikipedia:Twitter). The indecent press coverage and his strong running in the Republican race both cement his notability.

Slamforeman (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Victor Marx was a public figure before and after his political campaign. He has over 3M followers across social media. He has authored two autobiography books and produced and starred in two biographical films prior to ever running for office. When you Google Victor Marx he is the first to appear and completely dominates the first 10 pages of such a search. Deleting his Wikipedia page would mean the only narrative publicly available is the one he himself has created. The ability to edit, fact check and cite contradictory sources to claims made by public figures is the heart and soul of Wikipedia. What's more, removing his Wikipedia page would be a disservice to Victor Marx himself, as the fact that he has published two books about himself and financed and starred in two movies about himself speaks to his own desire to draw public attention to his life. ~2026-32234-83 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, and there's a lack of independent and significant coverage so far, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article: 2026 Colorado gubernatorial election. He's currently leading in the polls, but he's under 50% and the Republican primaries this year have been wildly unpredictable. Also, I don't see any reviews of his books in reliable sources; however ping me if you add two per book. FWIW, almost every politician west of Chicago supports the 2nd amendment, so that's not a point of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are a bunch of unregistered accounts not citing policy based reasons and they will not be counted in the close. The relevant policy is NPOL and GNG. Please explain how these are met by describing sources as assertions are equally unpersuasive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete (willing to support draftifying instead in case he wins the general election). If the two books and two movies are self-published and self-funded, they are clearly irrelevant for notability. So are social media followers. Not seeing independent coverage of anything but his candidate status. M kuhner (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

To add: would help if it were in a reliable source, but I don't think it is--I think its likely origin is a press release. M kuhner (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Marx's work before his gubernatorial campaign being covered by independent media is enough for WP:GNG. The page should remain but does need to be expanded and the references need improvement. -- Smashedbandit (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Keep per above A bag of many boiled potatoes (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - in my opinion he passes the bar in the same way Christine O'Donnell does, though page needs improvements Jishara (talk) 18:20, 18 June 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.

Janet Horner

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

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

There is a WP:NPOV benefit to having a clear standard on which politicians are included to get articles; a consistent approach that all members of the Oireachtas have an article, whereas councillors have an article only where there is significant coverage means that there isn't selectivity of subject matter based on the interests of editors (even if it means there will be some senators who won't have more than a two-line biography). Which isn't to say that a particular article won't have more detail if an editor have an interest or expertise. Horner to me is a marginal case, as there is coverage of the unfortunate attack on her during the 2024 locals, where the focus is on her in particular. On the other hand, most search results are about her as a candidate, rather than notability beyond that. She is chair of the Green Party, but I don't think internal positions grant notabililty. The attack during the locals is itself covered at 2024 Irish local elections, so deleting this article won't obscure that fact, and otherwise relies on WP:BLP1E. The discussion here can consider factors at Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates) and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Horner's notability was established before she became a candidate in the 2026 Dublin Central by-election so I don't think Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates) applies in this case. If anything, the by-election has increased her notability. As per WP:POLOUTCOMES she has received national press coverage for several reasons prior to her by-election candidacy including the attack during the 2024 local elections and her position as Cathaoirleach of the Green Party which is a position of national significance. She regularly speaks on a range of issues on national media which may be Dublin-focused but are often of national or sometimes international significance, including the 2023 Dublin riot - see here and here. For these reasons, I think that notability exists in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.

I would also note that deleting the article would make Horner the only person listed on Template:Green Party (Ireland) that doesn't have an article related to them and that the Janet Horner article is linked from at least ten other articles (not including articles where she is only linked through the template). I don't see a strong case for deletion here.

Fearadach (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. @Fearadach, you refer, in many of your AfD submissions and again here, to concepts that are not policy-based:

• "She regularly speaks on a range of issues on national media" is not relevant to AfD/notability. Many (perhaps all?) local politicians make statements that are covered/quoted. Per WP:NPOL, local politicians are not automatically notable. Being quoted (when speaking about another topic) is not the same as being covered (as a topic/subject in own right).
• "deleting the article would make Horner the only person listed on Template:Green Party (Ireland) that doesn't have an article". This is not a policy-based argument. Per WP:OSE, the notability of other people (who held the same office) doesn't mean this subject is notable.
• "article is linked from at least ten other articles". Per WP:ARBITRARYNUMBERS, the number of GHits or backlinks or whatever is not relevant.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

"many of your AfD submissions"? I didn't think I had made more than two or three, but I could be mistaken. Either way I'm not sure how previous submissions on different articles are relevant in this case. I've referenced four separate policies in my comments above. I accept your points about WP:OSE and WP:ARBITRARY but my original point still stands that the notability was established before she became a candidate and her press coverage has only increased since then. I don't see the rationale to delete in that context. Fearadach (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies Fearadach. I don't know how (though even similar usernames wouldn't excuse my mistake), but I must've confused you with another contributor. Apologies. Unrelated (and invalid) portion of comment struck above. Apologies again. Guliolopez (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Apology accepted - no hard feelings! Fearadach (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV are not met. (Subject is local politician only and all the coverage either relates to subject's role as local politician (or internal/chair role within Green Party) and/or passing mentions (like Irish Times RTÉ etc). The party/SIPTU press releases (and "who we are" page for Together For Yes) are not independent and don't contribute to notability at all. As an AtD, and as the main claim to notability (other than attack incident and local council role) is chairperson of party, could redirect to Green_Party_(Ireland)#Cathaoirleach_(Chairperson). Guliolopez (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, local politician fails WP:NPOL, being an election candidate does not confer notability, being Chair of the Green party does not confer notability. We don't have articles for Chairs of the Irish Labour party or the Social Democrats. Spleodrach (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: While local politicians are not presumed notable they are also not presumptively non-notable and I don't think coverage of them in that role should be disregarded when assessing WP:SIGCOV. I think the 2024 poster incident brings it over the line. WP:BLP1E does not apply due to the other coverage of her.

Nom's point about the WP:NPOV case for clear standards is well taken but it isn't decisive for councillors because for them it comes back to what constitutes SIGCOV, which is not specified in policy.

I think a separate discussion is worth having about party-internal positions. For example, I that such a role in a party in a government party should grant notability. Taghdtaighde (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jocelyn's dance ^talk 08:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Guliolopez mentions a suitable redirect destination and while my vote stays at keep, redirection should be preferred to deletion. Taghdtaighde (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment In reference to her position as Cathaoirleach, it is an internal role as opposed to the more public-facing role of ledear. Lisa Connell and Sorcha O'Neill are not considered notable, though chairpersons of the larger Labour Party (Ireland) or Social Democrats (Ireland). Each of the previous Cathaoirligh achieved notability as either a member of the Oirechtas, or in the case of Chu, as Lord Mayor of Dublin. The is also the lower prominence that these roles have as parties change in size. The first few leaders of the Workers' Party (Ireland) were clearly notable; that is not the case with their more recent leaders. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep While WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates councillors are neither presumptively notable nor presumptively not notable, it also notes: "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas". I think it is relatively common sense to consider Dublin as an "internationally famous metropolitian area". That said, by itself this is not an indicator for presumptive notability. However, between the coverage on the threats against her in 2024 and the media coverage around the left-wing contest for Dublin Central in the May 2026 by-election, coupled with her repeated presence in the media over the last three to four years, there's enough to merit satisfaction of WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:20, 21 June 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.

Siliguri Institute of Technology

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Boloram Adhikari (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 11:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Education, Schools, Engineering, Technology, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Siliguri#Educational facilities: In additional searches, I found one source that could be considered SIGCOV; remaining ones are pretty ROUTINE. And just one source doesn't save a page. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Siliguri#Educational facilities per BhikhariInformer‬. Sources with SIGCOV tend to be limited on this topic. Babin Mew (talk) 15:28, 18 June 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.

Boland Stadium

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

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

I seek a redirect to Boland Cavaliers; there is no independent notability for this stadium, any sources are namedrops without the "significant coverage" to the subject required by the GNG, and it serves generally as the ground for the redirect target. The article creator reverted a redirect, stating "Better to tag than instantly delete with no discussion," but the creator's also had nearly seventeen years to provide adequate sourcing, and adding a tag just kicks the can down the road. If he believes there are reliable sources giving significant coverage to this stadium, it's time to produce them. Ravenswing 13:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related AfD discussions. Ravenswing 13:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom and WP:NOPAGE. I see a previous redirect was reverted once before in 2021, with four sources added. Two of the four sources that were added are to verify events that take place at the stadium, not the stadium itself. A third is a primary source. That leaves exactly one source, which backs up the single sentence "It is used mostly for rugby union matches by the Boland Cavaliers team in the Currie Cup." This really should be merged for now until reliable secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage of the stadium can be added. (I should note that, prior to the first time this page was redirected, it had zero sources and a notability tag that dates to the day after the article's creation, so that would've been even more of a reason to redirect.) – Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per Epicgenius's analysis. M kuhner (talk) 04:04, 14 June 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.

Benjamin Knox

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

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

Lack of notability. Only source (and cite for very extravagent claims ) is self published. TheLongTone (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Article is also a copyvio of []TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Lady Chablis: this was the contesting of a BLAR from 2016 by TA and a new user. (This page started as the redirect in 2006, but was overwritten by a prior article attempt from 2013 to 2016.) Given the copyvio concerns in this iteration, that could have all just been outright reverted and the copyvio edits revision deleted (which might still be the end result here). No objection to full deletion if that's actually a better course of action here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I only spotted the copyvio after I had nominated for deletion. I am sot sure that I see the rationale for the redirect; what is the relationship between the Benjamin Franklin Knox in the Lady Chablis article and the subject of this article?TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete No non-primary sources used in the article. See source table below. Not finding anything online to help this article into notable territory --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://benjaminknox.com/pages/about-benjamin-knox			primary source	✘ No
https://agecon.tamu.edu/people/knox-90-benjamin/	Benjamin Knox '90		alumni newsletter	✘ No
https://www.ebay.com/p/10038771609			eBay listing for a self published catalog	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

Delete WomenArtistUpdates is right. The only sources are eBay, a personal website, and an alumni newsletter. I do not find anything better. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)