Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 June 19

Comparison of genealogy software

Comparison of genealogy software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Software. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• delete as these sorts of shopping guides are as a rule inappropriate in a work written for the ages. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that this article should be deleted however, not because the topic isn't suitable for Wikipedia but rather the article itself is not accurate. There is tremendous interest in this subject and an article ilucidating the benefits/disadvantages of various software offerings would be welcome. However several of the products listed are no longer available whereas some of the most popular ones are not included. Furthermore the comparisons do not differentiate clearly between those available in various languages, thus it is not really helpful. lynngol (talk) Lynngol (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not appropriate exactly because of what you just said. These guides date quickly, regardless of what interest there is likely to be in them. This is something for a blog posting on a genealogy website or the like, not here. Mangoe (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete While I enjoy comparison research, I agree that this content is not appropriate for WP. SupermarketCake (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: This is structured like a product listing, including irrelevant details such as the length of a free trial for some of these software programs. It is a collection of plainly original research, and cleaning this up would effectively amount to blanking the article, so I am in favor of deleting it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Caution. I'm not going to !vote on this but I will ask people to take great care. The nominator has a track record of seeking to get as many tabular comparison articles deleted as possible and has made many identical nominations, many of them unsuccessful. Please ask yourselves whether you would have nominated the article for deletion yourself if you had seen it first. If so, fair enough. If not, please consider whether you are being led up the garden path. If we delete this article then let's make sure we delete it for the right reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Making remarks about the "track record" of the nominator is off-topic and completely inappropriate for this venue. If you have personal qualms with the behavior of this editor, take it up on their talk page, not here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The nominator posted the same copy and paste meaningless rational in many places, past and present, and some were speedy kept for it. There are quite a lot of comparison articles, I see nothing wrong with this one. If something needs to removed or updated, then that is not a valid reason for deletion. This list article shows articles of the same type, logically grouped together here, that have their own Wikipedia articles, and list information that makes it easier to find what you are looking for than a simple category would. Category:Genealogy software Dream Focus 13:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  The nominator posted the same copy and paste meaningless rational in many places

  What the nominator has done at other AFDs is not relevant to this AfD.

  There are quite a lot of comparison articles, I see nothing wrong with this one.

  WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that is merely an expression of your opinion.

  If something needs to removed or updated, then that is not a valid reason for deletion.

  WP: DELREASON gives us broad latitude to delete any content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Unsourced content is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and nearly all the content in this article is unsourced. If you think it's feasible to source all the claims in the article, please go ahead and do so, and let me know when it is done.

  This list article shows articles of the same type, logically grouped together here, that have their own Wikipedia articles, and list information that makes it easier to find what you are looking for than a simple category would.

  There are an infinite number of listicles that we could come up with. We don't create as many of them as we can, because Wikipedia is not a WP: INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are approximately 230,000 to 240,000 stand-alone list articles on the English Wikipedia, accounting for roughly 3.3% of the platform's total article count.

  One of the reasons a list article can exist is because it aids in navigation. If it exist as a category, it can exist as a list, which is far more useful than a category since it allows additional information to be listed, and thus is easier for someone to find what they are looking for.

  Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

  Dream Focus 09:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Showing notability or fulfillment of a "recognized ... purpose" is a necessary but insufficient condition for keeping an article. It does not override the fact that we do not host large swaths of unsourced information. I agree that WP: NLIST says those things, but they are not relevant to the nominator's original objection. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Google news search shows comparisons for this type of software. https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-genealogy-software-and-services?test_uuid=05ZUPUtSJIjL9ET37tWfQcl&test_variant=A https://www.techradar.com/best/genealogy-tools https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/05/family-tree-apps-genealogy-laura-berry Dream Focus 15:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP: GOOGLEHITS much? HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  That essay you link to is about a different argument. I'm not saying hey, it gets a lot of hits on Google. I'm listing some reliable sources found with it that have detailed review articles comparing this type of software. Dream Focus 07:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would really hesitate to call some of these reviews detailed. The PCMag article is riddled with affiliate links, and the reviews of each piece of software are no more than a sentence, and the Guardian article suggests using Microsoft OneNote as a piece of geneaology software, which is questionable to say the least. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close, without deletion, without prejudice to immediate renomination. The nominator has now been blocked from AfDs for long term disruption. This AfD was part of that disruption and should be closed. I appreciate that that's a bit rough on the people who have actually taken the time to look at the article and decided in good faith that it should, or should not, be deleted but anybody who isn't blocked is free to renominate it, providing a proper rationale. If deletion is the right outcome then that should still happen but let's make sure we do it for valid reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no. This would just be abusive to people participating in this in good faith. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As if multiple people haven't already raised valid reasons for deleting this article in the first place? I understand that the nominator has been blocked, but this page is not a soapbox for your commentary about that individual. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I deliberately refrained from saying more than the bare minimum in that comment so the accusation of soapboxing is obviously unjustified. I am pretty certain that the AfD nomination is invalid and I think that the AfD itself is probably rendered invalid too. That's a valid point to make here. I don't appreciate the implication that I should just shut up and let that slide. If the closer thinks that the Delete arguments are sufficiently valid to stand alone, without a valid nomination, then that's within their discretion (I wouldn't take it to DRV) but people have a right to know that this AfD was initiated disruptively. They might or might not want to change their !votes. The closer might or might not agree with me that the whole thing is invalid. They will decide these matters, not you. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I deliberately refrained from saying more than the bare minimum in that comment so the accusation of soapboxing is obviously unjustified.

The bare minimum is nothing. If you are not going to comment on the article being nominated, you should say nothing. There is no policy that requires administrators to procedurally close AfD discussions based on whether or not the original nominator has been blocked. The notion that the AfD has suddenly become "invalid" is a fictional construct based solely on your opinion. Do not waste the time of other users who are here to comment on the article itself. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom has indeed been TBANed from AfDs and p-blocked from project namespace (by me) for disruptive nominations just like this one. However, discarding the nom, we still have four participants in good standing who argued in good faith for deletion. We are well past the point of a procedural close due to faulty nomination. Let's focus on substantive arguments here, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural keep: This AfD is too much of a mess now. I don't think it can close as anything other than "no consensus". Drawing it out longer will just be painful for everyone. MediaKyle (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Participants getting banned from AfDs is a routine occurrence. You seriously think this has never happened in the 20+ years that Wikipedia has existed? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Chill out. No, I don't think that, and I don't think editors are line cooks either like you said in the other AfD where you started badgering me. It's not like the discussion above is particularly insightful; the status quo should be maintained, and maybe the next AfD will be less of a trainwreck. MediaKyle (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Stop commenting if you're not here to evaluate the article. I can assure you that it is a terrible look to continue pushing for a procedural close after a relisting admin has denied a request for one. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can comment if I want to. All I see here is you doing a whole lot of yapping, and I don't think that's much valued either. Feel free to have the last word. MediaKyle (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am only here to participate in this AfD and keep it on-topic. I am sorry if these good-faith efforts have somehow offended you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Admin comment: Please stick to the topic. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 22 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.

Our Lady Queen of the Missions School

Our Lady Queen of the Missions School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Found and - both of them have detailed SIGCOV. Besides, there's also and some two-liners in few other sources. Overall, with WP:THREE good sources, this page looks good to be saved. Cheers, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as per the significant coverage in reliable sources identified by BhikhariInformer that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The reliable sources provide the significant independent coverage WP:SIGCOV required to meet WP:GNG. Staticspector (talk) 22:57, 25 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.

Paul Mobley

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST. Written like promo/resume; no independent secondary coverage; primary source tag up since 2008 - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 23:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, California, Michigan, and New York. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 23:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nomination. The article is promotional and lacks appropriate sourcing. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Because the article has large portions of promotional content, we are left to look elsewhere. Received an honorary degree but very little of anything else. Jay-GH 06:43, 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.

Karsay Dorottya

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

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

Notability doesn't appear to be established with provided sources. It could be a matter of WP:TOOSOON but I don't see the amount of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant an article. If the decision is to keep the article, it needs to be moved to Dorottya Karsay so that her name is presented correctly. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, LGBTQ+ studies, and Hungary. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment When an article title disagrees with its text like this (the text starts with "Dorottya Karsay") it sometimes means that the previous article was deleted and "salted" to prevent recreation. I don't know how to check--can someone who does know, please do so? M kuhner (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  It isn't. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The use of both "Dorottya Karsay" and "Karsay Dorottya" is merely due to confusion about Hungarian names in English Wikipedia, because in Hungary the surname traditionally appears first. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Or because of MOS:DEADNAME. Web-julio (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep per WP:SINGER#M2 (chart) and WP:CREATIVE #3 (e.g. p183). There are also other sources discussing her (such as Magyar Nemzet), but these are just spewing out propaganda, so they're not reliable. Nonetheless, it should be considered whether it might be better to create an article for the song or Milla, and then merge this article into that. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. I also vote to weak keep as the OP's issues with sourcing could be solved with editing, rather than nominating the page for deletion. Once again, deletion is not a solution to article cleanup. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Kudos to the previous voter for finding some deep Hungarian sources, but my assessment of those is the ("weak") opposite. Having a top ten hit in Hungary certainly helps but it seems like a fluke of the WP:ONEEVENT variety. Otherwise Karsay has been mentioned in some media reports as present at events and serving for organizations, but my assessment of those is that they add up to a WP:NOTRESUME violation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment they changed their name and pronouns. , ,,,,,,,,; ~draftify~ so the task force team that created this article can update it.Web-julio (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Those sources merely indicate that they are now using the name Dodo Karsay, and the sources do nothing for the shortage of notability under discussion here. That will still be a challenge in the draft system. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:HEY.Web-julio (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on what's available. We don't require a discussion about a name change, unless there's a factual dispute. I moved Pope Francis without discussing it. We renamed Chelsea Manning without much debate. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep But someone should get rid of YouTube and Instagram--we cannot use those as sources on Wikipedia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject passes WP:GNG requirements based on the sources discussed by @Kovcszaln6. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 07:17, 22 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.

Fleur Leussink

Fleur Leussink (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)

Celebrity "psychic", self-help type figure. There's some coverage of her, but it's exclusively the credulous puff piece type of source ("I spoke to my dead father through a psychic medium – and I couldn’t believe what I was told", for example), which are of dubious reliability. I tried to look for more even-handed coverage and even negative/skeptical coverage, which you'd generally expect to find some of for notable "psychics", but found nothing really.

On top of that, there are definitely some WP:AISIGNS present here, combined with the perfect formal English and markup in a single edit from a brand new account, that wrote this comment when this was originally at RFD, demonstrating a lack of English proficiency. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and Suspected AI-generated articles. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Notified WP:FTN of discussion. Also pinging original RFD participants: GearsDatapacks and Myceteae. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  And Krevionta; I don't know why Twinkle decided to notify GDP instead, oh well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is the brief RFD listing: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Fleur Leussink. Krevionta created Fleur Leussink as a redirect to Psychic on June 11. The redirect was promptly nominated for deletion and then, as noted by the nom, Krevionta created the standalone article, all in the span of about 30 hours. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The only sources that made me think twice were those from The Independent, but I realised that they were just as credulous as the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for failing NOLLM, being created unreasonably fast. Nobody writes with such a different level of proficiency, there is only one reasonable explanation for that. The sources also don't show SIGCOV, they are all credulous fluff. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Move to draft for further consideration. Prob no good sources will arise, but no rush. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. AI-generated article about a non-notable psychic. There are lifestyle fluff pieces in outlets that are generally reliable but upon inspection these do not contribute to notability, as others have noted. The suggestion to send this to draft space when the current content is unusable per the LLM policy and there are no good sources is incoherent. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: The subject is a notable individual. The Independent has covered Leussink at least three times across different years, with articles written by different journalists about her work, and her life in details. In addition, at least two other reliable publications have written about her, which should be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. There are also numerous supporting references, which are considered reliable for Wikipedia.
  I have revised the text and removed the LLM wording, so that should no longer be a reason to delete the article. Anyone may examine the current version, including with AI-detection tools
  Xcccccccc123 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Xcccccccc123: you should only bold a WP:NOTVOTE, use italics for emphasis.

  All of the text remaining in the article seems to be the LLM-generated text, and the Times source that you added is paywalled but the the title it seems to to be just as credulous as the rest of them. Why did you remove the {{circa}} template though? Personally I wouldn't waste any more time trying to fix this article. If you believe that this person is notable, then it's better to TNT and start over from scratch than trying to rescue an LLM text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for noting the format. I do not see any remaining LLM wording. I assume it is good now, or at least at a point where any remaining issues can be handled with a cleanup tag, and I believe the discussion should focus on the notability of the individual. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  You can easily see that: Diff/1358982039/1359132033. The article was initially generated by an LLM, and the user who created it was the only contributor to the text before your edits. So any unchanged text is generated. If you believe that this person meets notability guidelines, then your best bet is to write a new article from scratch. We know from experience (and the study done by WikiEd) that trying to "fix" or "rescue" an LLM-generated article is more work than starting from scratch. We don't allow LLM-generated text in the encyclopaedia, so generated articles are deleted, regardless of the notability of their subjects. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  • The Independent — Reliable; significant coverage: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/medium-fleur-reading-celebrity-psychic-b1987242.html
  • The Independent — Reliable; significant coverage: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/psychic-medium-death-grief-b2643707.html
  • The Times — Reliable; significant coverage: https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/article/the-psychic-wears-prada-meet-medium-fleur-lana-del-rey-s-grief-therapist-9h0g073wc
  • Vogue Scandinavia — Reliable; significant coverage: https://www.voguescandinavia.com/articles/are-mediums-the-newest-wellness-trend

  Xcccccccc123 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, those are published by reliable sources, but they are not independent from the subject. Both of the pieces published by The Independent are interviews which are not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject, because the information comes directly from the subject (that's why the author parameters n {{cite interview}} should be set to the interviewee). That's different from a journalistic article where the journalist writes based on their own research. I can't read the article in The Times because it's paywalled (I might have access through WP:LIBRARY or my local library but I didn't check), and the piece in Vogue is is also an interview (but it is also paywalled so I can't be sure), but it is someone who went to see this supposed psychic that is being interviewed, so that might be the best of these four sources.

  But none of that changes that the article currently fails WP:NOLLM, all of the prose in it was generated. You did a good job of removing the worst of it, but that just means that there is a smaller amount of generated text on the page (but the ratio is still the same). If you think that this person is notable, and you want there to be a BLP on them in the encylcopaedia, then your best bet is to just write a new article from scratch. Trying to "fix" or "rescue" an LLM-generated article is always going to be more more difficult and more work than to simply start from scratch. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Got it, Thanks for explaining! Xcccccccc123 (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Netherlands, and California. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. LLM-generated text is a trap. The article looks good, you think you can use some of it...but I've tried this repeatedly, and it really is a nightmare, worse than writing a new article. And there is a huge risk that the AISIGNS are removed but the false sourcing is not, rendering it extremely hard to spot in the future. (This is in my opinion the worst possible outcome. Never fix LLM wording until LLM hallucinations have all been removed. It's like putting carpet over a big hole in the floor.) M kuhner (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Teen Vogue , a thesis and the Independent mentioned already, just not quite enough to show notability. TOOSOON maybe? Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Delete Even if we believe there is this much reliable source attention (and that is a big if), the text as is does not show any relevance of the topic in any relevant context which does indeed look like LLM generated halucinations Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 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.

List of hāfu in popular culture

List of hāfu in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is almost unreferenced (just three footnotes). None of the refs suggest a list like this merits WP:NLIST. This is just the usual WP:INDISCRIMINATE, MOS:TRIVIA/WP:IPC failure - the kitchen sink WP:ORish collection of all works that the concept of Hāfu appears in, in some cases in passing (as a secondary character etc.). I don't think there is any value in redirecting this to Hāfu#Hāfu_in_popular_culture, which has no context outside a see also list to this, well, list. Surprisingly, this was created as recently as 2022, but it resembles the poor standards of the early years of Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - The two non-fiction sources being used in the article are simply on the concept of Hāfu in general, not their depiction in popular culture, and searches are not revealing any sources that would indicate a list like this could pass WP:NLIST. If any actual sources exist that would allow for some prose discussion on the concept, this can simply be added to the main Hāfu article, which is not so long that a split is necessary. As this is nothing more than an unsourced list of examples, there is nothing to merge, and it is not a particularly likely search term that a redirect would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. This clearly meets WP:GNG/WP:NLIST, the topic having been addressed in depth and directly as a set in reliable sources. Such as: Ko, Mika. "Representations of ‘Mixed-Race’Children in Japanese Cinema from the 1950s to the 1970s." Journal of Intercultural Studies 35.6 (2014): 627-645; Crick-Friesen, Florence. "Hafu Time: Mainstream and Alternative Constructions of Mixed Race Identities in the Japanese Media." University of Auckland (2016); Horiguchi, Sachiko, and Yuki Imoto. "Historicizing Mixed-Race Representations in Japan." Multiculturalism in East Asia: A Transnational Exploration of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (2016): 163; https://savvytokyo.com/portrayals-of-duality-hafu-in-the-media-and-popular-culture/ and so on....--~2026-34422-64 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - The final source that you provided a link for seems to be a discussion on real hāfu individuals and their appearances in media as actors and models, while this particular list that is up for discussion is just a list of fictional hāfu. Hence why I stated in my recommendation that any sourced information like this would be better suited to help expand the actual Hāfu article than support a trivia list of fictional characters. Are the other sources you found similar? Because actual reliably sourced discussions about hāfu individuals and their portrayal in media over the years is a valid subject that should certainly be covered in the main article, but is not exactly the kind of sources that would justify or support this particular list of largely non-notable fictional characters. Rorshacma (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Last source would be more to source another list indeed List of hāfu people. But the other are about the topic of the list of "half" characters (most of them fictional) as a set. I've added sources directly to the page, for a certain number of detailed items, independently. Can be very much improved. ~2026-34615-72 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  As for this particularly list being about "largely non-notable fictional characters", I beg to differ (most of them are blue links) but even if that WAS the case, Wikipedia:NLIST is extremely clear: "One accepted reason why 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. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." ~2026-34615-72 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Many blue links for characters are redirects to list of characters. Now, you are correct in your claim you make in your closing sentence above. But which WP:THREE sources do this? The references you added need to be formatted better, for example the first one did not link to any specific article and was missing most metadata; I fixed it for you - please format the references better (it's generally is just one click in Visual Editor, please log in to get access to the proper tools). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. ~2026-34615-72 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. It seems odd to us from the United States about this current obsession with biracial people, but 100 years ago we had the same weird interest. Think of Show Boat, which premiered 99 years ago and has been revived multiple times since, including a film by James Whale. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Apart from the list entries, there is no prose text, including in the main hafu article, describing how hafu in popular culture are in any way significant or a matter of interest. This suggests that there are no reliable sources that provide such information and therefore establish notability of the concept. Sandstein 07:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• KEEP. The list seems much improved since the AfD started. Dualpendel (talk) 08:35, 27 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.

Kyekyeku

Kyekyeku (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)

Available sources are mostly routine coverage and interviews, with no in-depth analysis. The subject does not meet NACTOR/NCREATIVE as 1957 (film), in its current form, does not pass NFLIM Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Ghana. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: With just one film, he doesn't pass WP:NDIRECTOR. And a redirect to that single film is also futile because in its current form (without any reviews), that's probably gonna be deleted too. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:32, 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!} 21:45, 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.

Battle of Șcheia

Battle of Șcheia (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 this article is entirely unsourced and is likely at least partially AI-generated or AI-assisted. It was previously draftified once for these same issues back in May, but the original author appears to have pasted the exact same content back into mainspace without improvement. Because it has already been moved to draft once, I believe a firm consensus is needed to return it to draftspace. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Why would we expect a different outcome from repeating the same draftification action? It didn't solve the problem the first time. Contrary to nom, I would strongly prefer Delete. It's almost surely LLM (look at the use of Markup instead of wikilinks), it's not adequately sourced, and it is POV-pushing: While later nationalistic historiography attempted to frame the event differently is not the kind of thing you can say without very good sourcing. M kuhner (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The difference is that I believe a draftification supported by XFD consensus can be enforced, including via round-robin page moves if needed, in the event that the author tries to circumvent it without improvement. A unilateral move-to-draft cannot be enforced in this manner, and is only supposed to be done once. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Suspected AI-generated articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as failing NOLLM. The user also created Draft:Battle of Şcheia (1486) in article space, which i draftified yesterday. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:57, 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.

National Engineering College

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

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

Fails WP:GNG AND WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kovilpatti#Education: It's mentioned there along with a source, albeit PRIMARY. In additional searches, I found some "Campus Connect" articles from RS which carry certain SIGCOV, but unfortunately, they aren't independent. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect. Per the above. Jay-GH 06:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect:It doesnt have enough WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. Better to redirect to Kovilpatti.AristocrSirr 🗨️ 04:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

*Redirect to Kovilpatti#Education The article fails to have significant independent coverage for a standalone article page WP:GNG. Staticspector (talk) 16:20, 26 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.

Sanjukta Parashar

Sanjukta Parashar (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)

Sources consist primarily of listicles, career profiles, and brief news mentions, none of which provide sustained independent coverage of the subject herself. Holding an IGP rank and conducting counter-insurgency operations are routine for officers at that level and do not establish notability under WP:NBIO. The 2017 Bhopal-Ujjain train blast investigation is mentioned but unsupported by coverage focusing significantly on her specifically. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, India, and Assam. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjukta Parashar. Frankly, this was inappropriate of Zne0us to move this from draft to article. --Yamla (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Huff Post is notorious for being unreliable. I'll take a look at the rest. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 9 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 13:56, 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!} 20:32, 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.

Sri Ramkrishna Sikshalaya

Sri Ramkrishna Sikshalaya (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 NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm surprised to not find anything useful for a school that's over 80 years old. Forget about SIGCOV, there is barely any coverage besides directories. And the archives also didn't help. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Explain nominations instead of simply pointing at a policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:40, 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!} 20:25, 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.

Tarasundari Balika Vidyabhaban

Tarasundari Balika Vidyabhaban (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 NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Filmssssssssssss You've made a small typo in GNG. Thought you might want to fix it. 🙃 BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Didn't find anything useful in additional searches. The school only gets TRIVIAL mentions in multiple articles regarding the school's principle, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. There is no SIGCOV about the school itself. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY and explain how it fails. Especially when making numerous nominations, put in some effort.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:39, 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!} 20:25, 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.

Keshabpur High School

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Nope....found nothing out there in additional searches to warrant notability. Just a non-RS job advert and nothing else. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY and explain how it fails.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:38, 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!} 20:25, 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.

BugHerd

BugHerd (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 for a software company. The references are the expected deluge of press releases and promo junk recounting their funding rounds and such. Previously declined as a speedy. MediaKyle (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Australia. MediaKyle (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• I looked at a couple sources. Lots of WP:CORPTRIVIA. The Designrush review looks suspiciously pay-to-play. The SmartCompany is essentially an interview with the founders. The Digiliterate review, which could be viable, is a dead link. Delete. M kuhner (talk) 00:15, 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!} 01:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Venture capital#Venture Capital Investment by Country#Australia and New Zealand, which describes some successful startups. There are a lot of problematic sources listed, but amongst them some reliable sources exist that likely meet WP:CORPDEPTH. There isn't much substance to the article for a standalone at the moment. However, I am convinced there is at least some level of notability by (Sydney Morning Herald), (Australian Financial Review), (ZDNet), all WP:RS and provide a level of depth about the company in these articles.

I don't believe that a merge would be helpful. We delete spam, not merge it. That article is a big mess already, merging this would only add to the clutter for someone else to remove later. MediaKyle (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is your opinion. If the article were purely spam, it wouldn't have been declined under G11. I am not saying its a good article, but it was also declined as a speedy under A7, and I understand why - there are parts of it that are supported by SIGCOV in RS, which indicates a level of notability. Therefore, the question in my mind becomes what to do with the reliable, notable bits once the cruft is removed? Thats why I proposed merging to this specific target. Dfadden (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect - there's no requirement to merge spammy stuff but redirection is cheap as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 22 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.

Expand 770

Expand 770 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. Article relies almost entirely on primary sources. The only non-primary sources are from Chabad.org which is not a notable news source. Yserbius (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related AfD discussions. Yserbius (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: There is some coverage , but it seems routine. "This entity won't be expanded", or discussions around the expansion. I don't see WHY it's notable. Sourcing is as explained, some primary, most not really showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:31, 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!} 20:23, 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.

Mario Pacilli

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

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

Subject does not seem to meet notability criteria whether measured by WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT and no SIGCOV as far as I can see. BleachPuffin (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. BleachPuffin (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – Per it.wiki sources. He played in lower divisions, but has coverage. Svartner (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – The sources on the Italian wiki gives him reasonable coverage. Maybe a translate template above the article might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollonLaurent (talk • contribs)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Not clear which of the it.wiki sources are supposed to be notable, look like ROUTINE/transfer to me? If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are sources with in-depth coverage, he had a distinguished spell at Lecce. . Svartner (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Sources to not demonsntrate significant coverage for WP:GNG. Textcurator (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – The sources located on Italian Wikipedia are routine announcements. Regarding those found by Svartner, the first is an interview while the second is an article about his retirement. None of them meet WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The page doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:SIGCOV standards. The only link on the page directs you to an online gambling site nothing related page in any means. Staticspector (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep/Draftify - This article is good to keep. It just need more improvemets and more sources. So8LLingT (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Can't keep and draftify at the same time. Which improvements with which sources? Geschichte (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Italian wiki sources are routine transactional blurbs. The Curiocity article is a Q&A with barely 3 sentences of extremely shallow stats-based coverage in its intro. The Pianeta Lecce article is literally just a prosified list of some of his stats (in the format of "he scored X goals and Y assists in Z appearances in [season] for [team]", no secondary analysis at all. JoelleJay (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

What example of sentence can be considered "secondary analysis"? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 21:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Totally fictional example: "Player has developed into one of the more dynamic members of his team, constantly in the center of the action. However, he sometimes hangs onto the ball when passing it to a teammate would serve him better. He also has an excessive number of fouls, even considering his aggressive play style. With disciplined coaching, he could become a top player." This would be "secondary analysis"--the author of the source is analyzing the subject's performance. "He scored X goals" is not; there's no analysis. M kuhner (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

is another source I found. I didn't see it on the Italian Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

He received coverage during his time at Lecce, as I mentioned earlier. All relevant information about his career can be checked. Svartner (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Katzrockso:, @M kuhner:, @Geschichte:, @Clariniie:, @Staticspector:, I found (""Anyone who has followed Lecce since the difficult years in Lega Pro will surely remember Mario Pacilli: the agile attacking midfielder who formed a dream trident – ​​at least for the category – alongside Caturano and Torromino, who were also key players in coach Liverani's journey from Lega Pro to Serie B in the 2017/18 season... His best season was his first, under the guidance of Padalino and then Rizzo, when he scored seven goals and five assists. The following season, due to poor physical condition and Mancosu's promotion to that position, Pacilli made just 14 appearances, providing three assists, and then left Lecce after their promotion to Serie B"), , , , , , among many more Italian source. Clearly signifcant Italian lower league player with 300+ professional games. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 17:28, 24 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.

Sue Saville

Sue Saville (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:JOURNALIST. A search of google news did not yield coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and England. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since 2011 (and especially for a BLP, 15 years is a very long time to have notability be in question). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete lack of reliable sources and fails WP:GNG

Dinitrify (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, clear fail of GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• It's often hard to source journalist bios. She has an entry in the reliable Who's Who in the Media 2006. Has a paragraph in a story about pandemic broadcasting.. Shortlisted for Medical Journalists' Association award in 2005. Brief coverage on p76 of this academic report: . There's a bio, but I'm unsure of reliabity. I suggest merging to List of ITV journalists and newsreaders (or at least a redirect), where her career can be briefly summarised. Fences&Windows 12:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge selectively to List of ITV journalists and newsreaders as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 26 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.

Sachin Parikh

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

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

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

After removing the unsourced and fluff, what's left suggests this is a supporting actor with mainly non-significant roles and not enough to show that WP:NACTOR is met. Ravensfire (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Ravensfire (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – Per WP:HEY, the article has been significantly improved since nomination and appears to meet WP:BASIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitnageswar11 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Blocked sock. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 08:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  At the time this comment was left, there have been ZERO edits since the nomination. Either this editor is looking at the wrong article or is just pulling this reason out of thin air. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe but (maybe that’s what Ammnitageswar11 meant???) before you removed a lot of the actor’s roles (the filmography was unsourced and incomplete, but still) from the page (see history), it was, I think, easier to realise that the actor probably meets Wikipedia:NACTOR, the specific guideline for actors, through roles in Bajrang Aur Ali and Vahali. Also please note that supporting roles can be considered significant. I am therefore a Keep on this one. The page needs reworking..... ~2026-35804-60 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  between 100+ and 400+ episodes in numerous series, including Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? Ek Baar Phir, Vasudha (2024 TV series), Pushpa Impossible, and Dadi Amma... Dadi Amma Maan Jaao! for example. Coverage to verifiy those roles includes numerous interviews like https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/entertainment/sachin-parikh-who-acted-in-films-like-main-atal-hoon-pk-aligarh-dil-toh-baccha-hai-ji-and-ott-many-series-talks-about-his-journey-589635/ that can help source the bigoraphy. ~2026-35804-60 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's an interview which doesn't help with notability. The sourcing in the article doesn't support the roles being notable. What I removed wasn't likewise wasn't sourced. Ravensfire (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  What did you find during your WP:BEFORE? Did you not perform any? If you did (and not merely suppressed titles of films he played in from the page) were you unable to verify at least his long filmography (some 40+ credits spanning almost 20 years) and that he has indeed multiple significant roles in notable productions? Some sources on the page DO allow to verify a certain number of them. I didn’t list all his significant roles, though. But you can verify each of them and understand which are significant, through existing sources. Such as, in English, https://www.iwmbuzz.com/television/editorial/review-of-zee-tvs-vasudha-a-well-depicted-clash-of-two-contrasting-worlds/2024/09/24 for his role in Vasudha (2024 TV series), https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/sachin-parikh-from-stage-lights-to-spotlight/81894082.html for Pushpa Impossible. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/movie-reviews/bajrang-aur-ali/movie-review/110746657.cms for Bajrang Aur Ali. And so on, and so forth for numerous films/series where he does indeed verifiably play a signficant role. These are just examples. Also, for the rest of your reply see WP:INTERVIEWS and kindly read my comment again, please. I am entirly convinced that this is a clear NACTOR pass. Thank you. ~2026-35804-60 (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(Ps-you wrote ”supporting actor with mainly non-significant roles”, which seems very much to imply that he does have some that are indeed significant and that is indeed true....--~2026-35804-60 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC))

Alexandar Soundarrajan AFD was kept because it was a revengeful AFD nomination and there was not even a single deletion vote. Any editor in good faith is free to nominate the article for deletion in future. You should argue based on the notability guidelines and not based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm . Not sure what this is about........These are the films/series he played in....NACTOR is a notability guideline. ~2026-35804-60 (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: As per Ravensfire. Fails NACTOR. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Fails NACTOR, how, exactly, please? ~2026-35804-60 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – Appears to satisfy WP:NACTOR through multiple significant roles across notable film, television, and streaming productions over a long-running career. The available sources and verifiable filmography support notability under both WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. The article may need improvement, but deletion is not warranted.Hirematviru (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

He does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. The subject's career extends across multiple notable television and film productions over many years. Roles in productions such as ''Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai'', ''So Dahada Sasuna'', ''Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah'', ''Bepanah Pyaar'', ''PK'', ''Bajrang Aur Ali'', and the ongoing series ''Vasudha'' indicate a sustained acting career with recurring and credited appearances in notable productions.

While editors may differ on whether every role was "significant", WP:NACTOR does not require only lead roles. Supporting and recurring roles can also contribute to notability when they are substantial and independently verifiable. The available sourcing and filmography together suggest that the subject's body of work merits retention and further improvement rather than deletion. Hirematviru (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not lead roles, but significant roles. And I'm still not seeing how that is met. A person can have a great a long career as a supporting actor that appears in lots of shows as minor characters. By itself though, that's not going to show that they had a notable career. Ravensfire (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

’It's not lead roles, but significant roles”....Hmmm, 1) there are some lead roles (he even has a title role in Bajrang Aur Ali !!!!) but anyway 2) the guideline requires significant roles, precisely. In notable productions. You have them. I am sincerrely puzzled..... ~2026-35804-60 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} - meaning, not supported. Clearly though, we disagree on this as I've looked at the sources, done a web search and failed to find non-[WP:NEWSORGINDIA]] sources with significant coverage, not press releases, not PR fluff, not interviews. It's not there in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hirematviru Can I ask whether you're using AI to write for you? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh but he does, only the page in its current state does not mention them; see above for at least 3 and please make sure you check before making such wild assertions. Thank you. ~2026-35804-60 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – NACTOR criterion 1 only says that an actor who has played multiple significant roles may be notable, it is not a guarantee for notability, and in this case I can't find any sourcing supporting notability per NACTOR. And I can't see where it is stated that three such roles are required. The sourcing does not show that GNG is met, either. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 25 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.

Warren Hathaway

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

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

Only one indepth source, not the multiple ones required to establish notability. All the other sources seem to be passing mentions, but no further reliable indepth sources as required to establish notability for enwiki. Searches are made somewhat more difficult because there was a New Brunswick lawyer of the same period named Joshua Warren Hathaway (born 1797), but that seems to be a different person. Fram (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Canada. Fram (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Passing mention in sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You have made your vote, please stop removing information from the article, you have made 10+ edits removing paragraphs of text and sources, while advocating to delete it based on too little information. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@New Yathrib - Fundy Historian: Perhaps I missed it, but where does it say I cannot remove unsourced content and improve an article that is up for deletion? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There is not one unsourced sentence in the entire article, you are deleting sourced sentences claiming they are not notable enough for his article, then campaigning to delete the article...you can't be doing both. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, along with other historical figures like Robert Pagan and Nathan Frink, he was rather prominent in the development of southwestern New Brunswick, Eastport Maine and the Passamaquoddy Bay - settling the region. Not every Penobscot Loyalist who moved to the area is notable enough for an arcticle, we can all agree, but those who went on to become functionally millionaires and owned multiple islands and were prominent in settling the area? Yes. It's also linked in five other articles. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Robert Pagan is notable because he has an entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Nathan Frink is notable because he was a member of the legislative assembly. Unfortunately this article does not meet either of those SNGs. The rest of your points here are largely irrelevant to a deletion discussion -- your best bet would be to try to dredge up more sources to bring to the table. I looked around but didn't find anything at all. MediaKyle (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. The article's citations are all a mess. They also don't establish notability. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been filling in some of the bare url references and adding page numbers to the book citations, thinking that this might help in assessing the article. In the process I've found a number of places where the article's claims don't seem to be entirely supported by the citations. For example, Barto doesn't say that people named their children after him "long after his death" and Craven doesn't say he went to Eastport "in pursuit of marriage". Also, the majority of the sources, including citation 1 from the Provincial Archives, spell his name "Hatheway". The most extensive coverage is in the Craven book, which goes into some detail about his conflicts with another non-notable Justice of the Peace, but that's about it. HazelAB (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, Hathaway/Hatheway is about half split - Legislature spells it one way, Petty spells it another, etc. It's part of what makes finding sources difficult. "long after his death" isn't in quotation marks in the article, but she's referring to the fact people in the region still use the name in reference to him at the time of her book, 100+ years later - and Craven says he went into Eastport, that he was married (off the top of my head a month after arriving) there, and that he then returned. The footnote is for the move to Eastport, it'd otherwise be two awkward sentences after each other. [removed incorrect reference] New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"It should be noted the nominator here tracks my posts and routinely just deletes paragraphs" I do no such thing, where did you get that idea? Fram (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

With my apologies somehow by the time I saw this AfD, the top "Delete" vote was made by someone rather antagonistic to me in the past efforting to delete my works, and I (incorrectly) thought they'd made the actual AfD; I apologise for wrongly suggesting that was anything to do with you. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for checking! Fram (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I've been on the fence about this, but after seeing the article expanded over the course of this AfD I think it's worth retaining. I tend to believe that if someone takes the time to write about a man 200 years after he died, that's a good sign in itself -- to me, the main consideration here beyond the sources is whether the topic is encyclopedic. An article about an 19th-century Justice of the Peace is precisely the kind of biography one would find in a respectable encyclopedia. I hate to invoke OTHERSTUFF, but if we can cover every random p**nstar on the internet, but not this fellow, we may have a problem. MediaKyle (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  We have deleted most porn star articles years and years ago and severely tightened the restrictions (first via the separate WP:PORNBIO, then via the geeral entertainer rules) so that porn stars who haven't been discussed in the mainstream press are generally deleted. Most paper encyclopedia's didn't include most Justices of the Peace, which is a rather common function. Fram (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, and if all there was to say about him was that he was a JP, I wouldn't have !voted keep. But he was also a militia captain, merchant, and big-time landowner, among other things... The sources are not particularly strong, but there's a lot of them, with enough detail that a decent article can be written. The subject was clearly not a nobody. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia have covered far less influential people. MediaKyle (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think his role as a millionaire merchant trying to build up a rival to Saint Andrews, New Brunswick in the Fundy Isles, seeing himself "at war" with all the notable 'founding fathers' of the region is more his claim to fame than the JP appointment...although his JP appointment was absolutely wild and notable in its own right. He owned more businesses and invested in others, trying to undermine mainland authority and build up the Isles (of which he owned six islands), than the article lists right now. For those not from the region, these Isles tended toward informal dual-loyalty between US and Canada holding allegiance to both or neither equally. As with the Owens (who signed against Hatheway on the Ruggles Affair) declaring that the mainland has no right to invoke law on "their" islands, etc. Pagan and Wyer types played both sides, whereas Owen and Hatheway were fiercely partisan. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - This article is good enough to stay. It has been improved over sometime and just need more improvement. So8LLingT (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:28, 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!} 20:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: In my humble opinion, this edit was in error, but I'm not going to get into an edit war. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:MILL local official of no apparent importance, or at least none that is apparent from the article. Even assuming the sourcing holds up, we are not required to cover every topic meeting GNG. We can, and in this case should, exercise editorial judgment. Sandstein 08:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  "we are not required to cover every topic meeting GNG" ... So you're saying the topic meets GNG, then? I don't understand. MediaKyle (talk) 12:35, 27 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.

Faulknor-class flotilla leader

Faulknor-class flotilla leader (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 Almirante Lynch-class destroyer because the pages seem to heavily WP:OVERLAP with each other, as seen in their two ledes. FaviFake (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, United Kingdom, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Beyond the leads, the content differs in the Design section and in the Service History. It's not unusual for there to be some overlap in articles about warship classes, especially when they have been operated by different navies at different times with a common design but different configurations. Based on the content of both articles, if we were going to merge, I would suggest that Almirante Lynch-class destroyer is instead merged into this article, as the Faulknor-class appears more notable due to its wartime service with Royal Navy.

Dfadden (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. To be clear, you're still !voting to keep and have a reverse merge as your second option? FaviFake (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Dfadden (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep/Redirect - It's cool to keep and probably redirected. So8LLingT (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  You can't keep an article and redirect it at the same time... FaviFake (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per Dfadden above. They might have been originally constructed as Almirante Lynch-class destroyers, but the bulk of the class appears to be more notable for their service with the Royal Navy (since 4 of the total 6 served there). Perhaps a redirect could be used to aid users searching for the original class name. Intothatdarkness 12:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• I came here following a link to a merge proposal; it now seems to be a deletion discussion.

For the record I am opposed to deletion, and I am also opposed to a merger. There is no lack of reliable sources for this page, (they could do with tidying up, but if you are fixing to delete the page that feels like that would be a waste of effort) and has significant coverage in them; as a class of warships that served in the First World War they surely don’t lack notability.

As for merging this with the Almirante Lynch page, why? If there is an overlap in the lead section that can be rectified easily enough by moving some details (not a lot, so far as I can see); the Almirante Lynch page should be focussed on the Chilean aspect of the vships and this page on the British, and it doesn’t require a merge to fix that. Also the Faulknors underwent various changes in British hands, so their design, construction and general characteristics were different, as were their service histories. It isn’t unusual to have two class articles where the same ships served in different navies (see Evarts/Buckley classes and in RN service Captains class; the Clemson/Wickes classes and the Towns; and the Action/Temptress classes and the Flowers).

These pages already work as stand-alone but cross-linked articles, and putting them on the same page won’t help readers who are looking at ships of a particular nation, or with categorization by navy; the result would definitely be "clunky". Xyl 54 (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I came here following a link to a merge proposal; it now seems to be a deletion discussion.
@Xyl 54 Nope, this is not a deletion discussion. It's indeed a merge proposal. FaviFake (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake: Fair enough: though it’s an easy mistake to make, considering the title says WP:Articles for Deletion, not #Proposed Merge. As a matter of interest, what are the options here? Is it just Merge/NotMerge, or does it include Delete/Keep? If it’s the former, why are we here? And if the latter, it isn’t just a merge discussion at all, is it? Anyway, I’ve taken issue with this innovation here, if you are interested. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Xyl 54 The answer is that we're here because there was consensus to merge PAM into AfD. You can try to reverse it, but i doubt it'll work. FaviFake (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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

• Support merge as proposed; I doubt there is enough material differences between the two groups to warrant separate articles, and they weren't in RN service long enough to have received significant upgrades to their original equipment. Generally speaking, when we have classes of mixed nationality, we go by the original owner/builder/etc. Thus we have Almirante Latorre-class battleship, Vifor-class destroyer, Reşadiye-class battleship, Giuseppe Garibaldi-class cruiser, etc. The notability of the period of service is less relevant for the class article than it is for articles on the individual ships (so it would make much more sense to keep the articles at HMS Faulknor (1914) than to move it to ARA Almirante Riveros. Dfadden's proposal would be plainly incorrect, since only 4 of the 6 could be described as "Faulknor-class flotilla leaders". Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, my !vote was and remains to keep both articles. Dfadden (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Another complication is that, although the proposed merge is in the right direction (per Parsecboy), the Faulknor's page is better referenced, and has more scope for expansion. Also, Conway and Janes both treat the Almirante Williams ships as a separate class, due to the modifications while in British hands. Just a thought... Xyl 54 (talk) 12:34, 24 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.

NHS West Essex

NHS West Essex (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)

Very non-notable organisation which existed for only a few years, nil non-primary sources cited, article is also full of trivia such as the section on the board which is essentially a directory Elshad (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and England. Elshad (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep/Dratify - This article can be drafted and improved with time. It looks good so far though. So8LLingT (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  This user provides superficial opinions not well grounded in policy. See contributions. Geschichte (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: it probably cannot be overlooked that this was originally created by Nhswestessex (talk · contribs), and a G11 tag at the time (which, to be clear, probably would not apply to the current version) was quickly contested by another then-new (2009) user. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seriously, we need some eyes and comments on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:19, 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.

Indian Digital Gaming Society

Indian Digital Gaming Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article appears to be an AI-generated output without human review, which is in violation of WP:LLM guidelines. Additionally, several citations failed verification. I also have notability concerns. Several sources are less than reliable (The Association News and The Economic Times, as well as possibly NDTV Gadgets). I only see one reliable source which contains WP:SIGCOV, which is the Indian Express. The Financial Express source only mentions the organization once in passing, so it fails WP:SIGCOV. The Business Line source returns a 404 error and I cannot find an archive for it. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and India. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I should note that the creator, Kimran999 (talk · contribs), has created similar articles in the past; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online gaming in India. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Confederation of Indian Industry#Indian Digital Gaming Society, which I've created to house the most important information in this article, principally on the basis that this article is not itself notable as a subsidiary of the Confederation of Indian Industry, especially since their actual activities are obscure. Embyarby (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Embyarby, though I wince at it--the organization seems entirely vaporous. M kuhner (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:52, 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.

Cordy Mobilopter

Cordy Mobilopter (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)

Sources treat it as a kind of oddity, or mention it in a list. Did not fly, had no lasting influence on aviation, no significant references in later sources. VTOL aircraft were already explored by the 1930s. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 18:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Full disclosure: I created this article. :-)

Yes, the Mobilopter is an oddity, but it's also a notable example of "outsider" aircraft design. This is reflected in how often it's been mentioned in magazine articles and books about unusual, and often unsuccessful, flying machines from the past.

Other craft which can also be viewed through the same lens as the Mobilopter - eg the Pitts Sky Car and the Kouns-Craft - have their own Wikipedia articles. By that measure, the Cordy Mobilopter isn't an outlier. I'd like the article to be retained.

Thanks Aerohydro (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have some qualms about your sourcing: is there a non-OR reason for saying that the patents relate to the Mobilopter, since neither mentions it as far as I can tell? And you source "did not fly" to #1 which definitely does not say that. M kuhner (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Aircraft patents almost never mention the built design by name. These patents very evidently concern the technology employed in the Mobilopter. Patents are not evidence of notability, but they are useful sources for some of the claims made in the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. While it is long-established convention that aircraft that flew are almost certainly notable, there is nothing that says an aircraft that didn't fly isn't (see Rockwell XFV-12 and others). It being "an oddity" is not a valid argument for deletion, as is the concept 'already having been explored'. While some of the sources are open to question, there are three solid period sources (major city newspaper and two national journals) that establish notability; a lack of significant references in later sources is irrelevant as notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a great many such abortive private experiments in aviation. Because they are one-offs that never flew - and mostly never could have - the wp:Notability (aircraft) guideline does not even include them in its classes of aircraft. These articles are therefore subject only to wp:GNG and all the usual. While influence and retrospective interest may establish notability, they are not required as such. As The Bushranger notes, this article does have sufficient contemporary citations to pass muster. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment If kept, should it be moved to "Mobilopter"? --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  It should stay as it is. The Aircraft Wikiproject has agreed the convention for article titles, that the manufacturer or designer's name must precede the aircraft identity. Cordy was the designer and builder, the Mobilopter was the name he chose for it. I have created the Mobilopter page as a redirect to it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: A very interesting article, with enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Notability seems quite clear to me. -- MediaKyle (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: A part of aviation history as a failed project; it meets WP:GNG. There is no policy reason cited to delete this article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 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.

Laurent Zeitoun

Laurent Zeitoun (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)

Doesn't seem notable by itself. Trivial mentions. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Comics and animation, Entertainment, and France. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think the nominator did a WP:BEFORE here. A simple Google search for "Laurent Zeitoun" turns up tons of coverage. This is an easy save for anyone who wants to do some more digging. MediaKyle (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete I disagree with the above comment. There is very little WP:RS coverage that would be necessary to from WP:GNG notability. In any case, the article as written is the subject at hand, and it lacks adequate citations, references, and information that would prove notability. As written, the article does not qualify under GNG and should be deleted. If other editors want to “do some digging” and update and improve the article, perhaps it might be enough to salvage it. But it’s not adequate as currently written. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - there is one good source, Variety, but more are needed. Burden of proof for a BLP is on the creator. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 26 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.

University of Toronto Chinese Students and Scholars Association

University of Toronto Chinese Students and Scholars Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced for 13 years. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Unfortunately delete I looked hoping to find something to salvage this article and found like... one... citation. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, and anyway I think the bar for student organizations would have to be WP:GNG which is manifestly failed here (nothing independent found). The reference cited by the previous user is a trivial mention. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails WP:ORG. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails WP:ORG. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:17, 26 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-20 football team results (2005–present)

Colombia national under-20 football team results (2005–present) (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) 17:27, 19 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) 17:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we don't need lists of youth results. GiantSnowman 19:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ~2026-36029-21 (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - agree that the topic fails WP:NLIST. C679 12:05, 23 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-20 football team results (1954–2004)

Colombia national under-20 football team results (1954–2004) (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) 17:26, 19 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) 17:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we don't need lists of youth results. GiantSnowman 19:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ~2026-36029-21 (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - agree that the topic fails WP:NLIST. C679 12:04, 23 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.

Parliament Act 1911

Parliament Act 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Note: This merge proposal was opened on the article's talk page a long time ago, but the editor Beland recently tagged the articles for merging again and commented on the proposal. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than in talk pages. Rather than create new bureaucratic complications I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 § Suggested merge of 1911 and 1949 articles to here

 – FaviFake (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggested merge of 1911 and 1949 articles to Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949

I'd like to suggest that we merge Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 into Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Both the 1911 and 1949 articles have very little content - mostly an infobox, links to the full text, and a link to this excellent article - which could be moved here without too much trouble. The pages are essentially redirects where you have to find and click the link here (also making this page harder to find), when it merging them here would mean we could send people to this page directly. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support, on the proviso that the 1911 and 1949 articles redirect to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.231.37 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment When I created these articles I had it in mind to move the material that was only relevant to one Act and not the other (e.g. the history of the passage of the 1911 Act) to relevant article. I thought it would lead to clearer presentation and I thought that if a blow by blow account of the provisions of each of these Acts was given, this article might become rather long. I did not actually get round to this. I think that there is some material in each article that is not reproduced in this article. If you really want to merge them you will have to make sure that it is reproduced. James500 (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

didn't seem to be consensus to merge, remove tag, Tom B (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Alternative proposal Split this page in two.James500 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge. Both Acts have sections in this article, and I think at least one is longer than the article itself. It's OK if there's a little material that's unique to each, but the context for both and the context of the 1911 act for the 1949 act means I think they make more sense to readers as a single article. -- Beland (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• OBJECT to using arguments from a stale discussion over fifteen years as the basis to open an RfD. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: At the time the original discussion was created, the articles looked like this:

• Parliament Act 1911
• Parliament Act 1949
• Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949

FaviFake (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

and it's been 16 years, this should have been procedurally closed as it's stale – The Grid (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 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.

2026 Muscatine shootings

2026 Muscatine shootings (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 List of mass shootings in the United States in 2026 because local coverage of the event ended on June 11 (just 10 days after the shootings) and national coverage was exceedingly brief, just lasting one or two days after the shootings. As such, since there are no apparent lasting impacts, the event appears to fail WP:NEVENT and was just a breaking news story. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Raskuly 🐰 15:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iowa. Raskuly 🐰 15:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom NesserWiki (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. Although seven people died and the article is pretty good length, coverage did end and there isn't any lasting impact. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:46, 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.

Rebecca Cooke (politician)

Rebecca Cooke (politician) (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 Wisconsin#District 3 because article subject fails WP:NPOL. The coverage about her is only in relation to her political campaigns. Article should be redirected to the election page for now, and can be created again if she wins in November. Marquardtika (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep – Cooke does fail WP:NPOL, but clearly meets WP:GNG. The article was approved through the AfC process by reviewer Grapesurgeon just a few weeks ago. Cooke has run for office multiple times and partially as a result of this, there is a large amount of significant coverage spanning years (including coverage from before she ran for office). She is the subject of multiple independent profiles, notably with The Guardian and Mother Jones, which, combined with the pre-candidacy sources, dismisses the notion that the coverage is limited to "her political campaigns". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep I agree with aesurias here. The article is well-sourced, with significant local coverage, regardless of whether or not she has won an election. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Yeah I approved this article because GNG specifically grapesurgeon (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep There has been enough local coverage + mainstream coverage (in the form of profiles) for Cooke to meetWP:GNG. There also is not a clear redirect target (could be redirected to 2024 as well). I will say, however, that Cooke is probably the bar for unelected candidates. If they can clear her in coverage, they meet WP:GNG. If they cannot, they fail WP:GNG. EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep I agree with the comments above. There is adequate coverage and she meets GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep There is no reason to redirect the page, since the article clearly meets the WP:GNG criteria.Radiohist (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per aesurias. CopyleftEverything (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep meets GNG. Sustained coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 04:23, 26 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.

Lee Jung-keun

Lee Jung-keun (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)

really vague name, shared with sciencey boys of assorted areas (at least one software engineer and one physicist), an actor, a writer (who is apparently mildly popular in brazil, whatever that is), and a musician. none notable, as far as all the no material i found about them implies, which is a shame

...kind of obviously, i've found nothing of note about this lee jung-keun either, aside from that the one ref here has another romanization of his name (also really vague), and the iwb link has yet another (which suggests that he's fought as late as 2019, and is vague too), and no info on him not doing wrestling anymore. it's a lot of bells and whistles for a garden-variety case of unnotable medalist, huh? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 15:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Wrestling, and South Korea. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 15:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as significant coverage likely exists on this Olympic bronze medalist and Asian Games champion. Even if the SIGCOV is not available as it would be for a modern Olympic athlete, the achievement-based (not participation-based) criteria I stated above is a valid reason to invoke WP:IAR, as deleting an article on an Olympic medalist does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Frank Anchor 15:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  "likely" doesn't suggest that much research was done, and appealing to iar under a "maybe" doesn't suggest that the criteria you seem to have forgotten to state are met (even ignoring how rarely iar is successfully deliberately invoked). to avoid the usual routine, have you tried looking for sources before assuming that an indiscriminate yet incomplete blurb with only a single database in terms of sources can be kept? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 16:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Citing IAR is a legitimate AFD argument. IAR is a Wikipedia POLICY which recognizes that the policies and guidelines are not perfect. In this case, the achievement-based criterion of earning an Olympic medal is enough to warrant an article. Frank Anchor 19:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Consarn: Where did YOU, as the nominator, and as required by WP:BEFORE, look for sources on this very accomplished champion wrestler of all of Asia and Olympic medalist? Did you look at South Korean newspaper archives from the 1980s where virtually all coverage for 1980s South Korean sportsmen would be? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

sorry for the delay

i used all the tools linked above, with all the spellings i could think of, and did it again now to be sure. in all cases, including in korean newspapers that i could get to load, there weren't mentions of him. instead, there were papers, studies, and the such by people with the same name (example), coincidences with names (example), databases already in the article (i don't need to link them again), the article (that one was on me), and the aforementioned writer (plus some unrelated artists, though i couldn't get those links to load again)

...is what i would say, but the very last set of searches i did this time net me this juicy tidbit that actually says a thing or two about him!!

...is what i would say, but it's an interview, so only the content preceding it would be useful for notability. other sources i've found include this (about a lee jung-keun who is a wrestler, but isn't this one), this (about his wife, and the only mention i could find of him being a former wrestler, but is fairly insubstantial), and this (which doesn't clarify which jung-keun it is, but while it seems to be the same guy, it mentions him in passing as another wrestler's coach). also this, which mentions him in passing, but i'm not sure what to make of it

as far as mentions in books go, most of what i could find was passing stuff suggesting that this is a really common name, and none of it seemed to be about anyone in particular. mostly yearbooks and a book about how cool jesus is

@BeanieFan11 procedurally-ish pinging you with my not very useful findings. if you've done some looking and found something you think could be of use, i'd like to see it too. it wouldn't be hard, i'm not very good at looking for sources consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

“Unnotable Olympic medalist” is a farcical sentence. JTtheOG (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – Per Frank Anchor. Svartner (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per NATHLETE, also please tone down the sarcasm and condescension. These are real people you're talking about, many living. You're lucky they probably largely don't speak English; treating people like this is inappropriate. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep made significant impact in his sport, with his achievements. ~2026-36200-82 (talk) 19:11, 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.

Alexandar Soundarrajan

Alexandar Soundarrajan (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 does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search finds only limited coverage, much of it consisting of routine announcements, interviews, or sources connected to the subject rather than significant independent coverage establishing notability. The article also relies heavily on primary and self-published sources for verification. Further independent reliable sources demonstrating sustained coverage have not been shown. WP:BEFORE: https://www.google.com/search?q=Alexandar+Soundarrajan&tbm=nws Amitnageswar11 (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related AfD discussions. Amitnageswar11 (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - please note that this appears to be a WP:REVENGE AfD per this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, this seems to be a WP:REVENGE AfD. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep indeed a REVENGE ~2026-36029-21 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the nominator has since been blocked as a sock. (No opinion on the article, but combine that with the REVENGE concerns and this nomination is likely to be closed sooner rather than later.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 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.

Wabu High School

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

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

No significant coverage of the high school in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Found mentions, but no in-depth content. Was de-prod on April 19, 2026. JoeNMLC (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Korea. JoeNMLC (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep searching in Korean gets numerous results. the list goes on, can share more if want. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:53, 14 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)} 13:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as it is well sourced as shown by user: grapesurgeon, the article needs to be updated not deleted. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:03, 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.

Thurgood Marshall High School (Maryland)

Thurgood Marshall High School (Maryland) (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)

Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Found mentions, and other same-name schools. Was de-prod on April 22, 2026. JoeNMLC (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maryland. JoeNMLC (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:40, 12 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)} 13:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Thurgood Marshall — Maile (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as it is an unreferenced stub about a defunct school with no notability of its own. Association does not guarantee a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:09, 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.

Super Leaf

Super Leaf (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 Super Mario because this power-up doesn't need its own article. The other power-ups don't have their own articles. — Ultimate Ultimatum (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Nominator has failed to produce a valid merge rationale based on any guidelines or policies. The lack of articles on other power-ups is not a relevant factor. The article exists because Super Leaf has numerous pieces of significant coverage on it that demonstrates notability. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep WP:DOESNTBELONG is not a valid argument for deletion/merge, simple as that. I do think the page should be moved to "Raccoon Mario" as "Super Leaf" is generally not what the notable thing is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 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.

Kurangi Vijayshrie Nagraj

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

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

WP:TOOSOON, No prominent roles, lacks WP:SIGCOV, appears to fail WP:NACTRESS CommanderF1 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and Madhya Pradesh. CommanderF1 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• DELETE as there is no WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Fans and aggregator sites are used for sourcing, fails to meet WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I see..you !voted on another AfD only a 3 minutes before commenting here. Were you able to review all the sources and assess the available coverage before concluding that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR? Could you identify which sources you examined and why you consider them insufficient for significant coverage? ~2026-35656-05 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Dz5t 8O12 alright could you specify which sources you reviewed and why you consider fail?? under WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR? It would be helpful to understand the basis for the delete rationale. Amitnageswar11 (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – Appears to meet WP:GNG through multiple independent reliable sources. The subject has received coverage beyond routine mentions and the article satisfies WP:BASICAmitnageswar11 (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Strike multiple sock comments In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing to show multiple significant roles, lacking good sources with in-depth coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Note that the nominator and all but two participants are CU-confirmed sockpuppets . In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nominator blocked as Sock~2026-36766-78 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

No. There are two editors in good standing that have requested deletion. The discussion can remain open. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - firstly the creator of the article and sole significant contributor is a block-evading sock, so this could be a WP:G5 speedy delete. In any case, the very young subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The sources are all either unreliable articles written by 'news desk' staff (Web Desk author and News Network author) or just basic profile pages with no meaningful coverage (TV Guide and Filmibeat). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 26 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.

Jin Yongde

Jin Yongde (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)

BLP with no references. Could not find anything with substantial information. Search results show match scores, but little else. Themeparks (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment – There are sources in zh.wiki article. Svartner (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as gold medalist at the Asian Games, a major international competition which meets notability under WP:ATHLETE. Although article needs better sourcing.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. Zhou, Yanhu 周燕虎; Lei, Ni 雷霓 (2016-07-07). "八一射击队名将令巴西军中枪王感慨"既生瑜何生亮"" [Star Marksman from the PLA's "August First" Shooting Team Makes Brazilian Sharpshooter Sigh: "Why Must There Be a 'Zhou Yu' When There Is a 'Zhuge Liang'?"] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2026-06-22. Retrieved 2026-06-22.

     The article notes: "出身军人家庭的金泳德，对枪有着一种天然的亲切感。15岁那年，他陪同学参加承德业余体校射击面试。听着噼里啪啦的枪声，他眼神里流露出一种渴望和期盼，双手还下意识做起了瞄准动作。这一幕恰好被路过的教练许春连看在眼里。测视力、码弹壳、托纸片……经过简单测试，许春连当即决定将他破格录用。... 命运总是垂青不舍不弃之人。一个偶然机会，金泳德得知武警前卫射击队招人的消息，立即放弃丰厚的收入，前去应征并顺利通过面试。经过两个月紧张试训，金泳德脱颖而出，一举夺得西南协作区射击比赛季军，被特招入伍。所谓“初生牛犊不怕虎”，1998年12月，他首次参加在泰国曼谷举办的第十三届亚运会，就把男子25米标准手枪射击项目冠军揽入怀中，这令许多枪坛名将瞠目结舌，他们到处打听从哪冒出来的“中国金”。这一年，金泳德荣立了首个一等功，并被国家体委授予“体育运动荣誉奖章”，他开始在国内外枪坛中崭露头角。"

     From Google Translate: "Born into a military family, Jin Yongde felt a natural affinity for firearms. At the age of 15, he accompanied a classmate to an audition for the Chengde Amateur Sports School's shooting program. As the crackle of gunfire filled the air, his eyes revealed a look of longing and anticipation, and he instinctively mimicked the motion of aiming a gun. This scene caught the eye of a passing coach, Xu Chunlian. After a series of simple tests—checking his eyesight, stacking shell casings, balancing paper scraps—Xu decided on the spot to recruit him, making an exception to the usual rules. ... Fate often favors those who persevere. By chance, Jin learned that the Armed Police Qianwei Shooting Team was recruiting; he immediately gave up a lucrative income to apply and successfully passed the interview. After two months of rigorous trial training, Jin distinguished himself by winning third place in the Southwest Regional Shooting Competition, earning a special enlistment into the military. True to the saying that "newborn calves are not afraid of tigers," he made his debut at the 13th Asian Games in Bangkok in December 1998 and clinched the gold medal in the men's 25-meter standard pistol event. His victory stunned established shooting stars, who scrambled to find out where this "Jin from China" had suddenly appeared from. That year, Jin was awarded a First-Class Merit Citation and received the "Sports Honor Medal" from the State Sports Commission, marking his emergence as a rising talent in the shooting world."

  2. Yu, Xiaoquan 于晓泉; Ding, Peng 丁鹏; Wang, Qin 王沁 (2019-10-19). "火炬手金泳德："枪王"迎来人生高光时刻" [Torchbearer Jin Yongde: "King of the Gun" Reaches a Career High] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2022-02-11. Retrieved 2026-06-22.

     The article notes: "作为中央军委训练管理部军事体育训练中心八一射击队副队长，金泳德此前曾参加过三届世界军人运动会，带领的队伍在世界军运会上共获得16枚金牌，其中在印度举办的第四届世界军人运动会上，他们一举拿下9枚金牌。... 在1998年曼谷亚运会上，金泳德一路过关斩将，夺得男子25米标准手枪射击项目冠军，攀上射击生涯第一座高峰。20多年来，他刷新一项项射击纪录，仅在第五届世界军人运动会上就摘得3枚金牌，先后荣立一等功5次、二等功9次，被评为全军最佳运动员等，有“枪王”之誉。"

     From Google Translate: "As the deputy captain of the Bayi Shooting Team under the Military Sports Training Center of the CMC Training and Administration Department, Jin Yongde has previously participated in three editions of the Military World Games. The teams he led secured a total of 16 gold medals at these games, including a haul of nine golds at the 4th Military World Games held in India. ... At the 1998 Asian Games in Bangkok, Jin triumphed over strong competition to win the men's 25m standard pistol event, marking the first major peak of his shooting career. Over the past two decades, he has repeatedly broken shooting records—winning three gold medals at the 5th Military World Games alone—and has been honored with five First-Class Merit citations and nine Second-Class Merit citations. Recognized as an "Outstanding Athlete" of the entire military, he has earned the reputation of "King of Marksmen.""

  3. Yu, Pei 喻珮 (2019-10-23). "军运会射击：老将金泳德率"男团"逆转夺金" [Military World Games Shooting: Veteran Jin Yongde Leads Men's Team to Come-from-Behind Gold] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2021-08-01. Retrieved 2026-06-22.

     The article notes: "23日的军运会射击赛场，中国队经历逆转获得男子25米中心发火手枪团体比赛的金牌。这也是军运会火炬手、八一射击队副队长兼教练金泳德在本届赛事收获的第二枚金牌。"

     From Google Translate: "At the Military World Games shooting venue on the 23rd, the Chinese team staged a comeback to win the gold medal in the men's 25m center-fire pistol team event. This marks the second gold medal of the games for Jin Yongde, a torchbearer for the event and the deputy captain and coach of the Bayi Shooting Team."

  4. Sun, Zhiying 孙智英; Wang, Yun 王韵; Yuan, Yun 袁钰 (2020-05-25). "全国政协委员金泳德：有梦想才会有方向" [Jin Yongde, Member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC): Dreams Provide Direction]. People's Liberation Army Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-01-28. Retrieved 2026-06-22.

     The article notes: "谈到梦想，全国政协委员、军委训练管理部军事体育训练中心八一射击队副队长兼教练金泳德坚定地说道。作为武汉军运会首金获得者，他为梦想奋战的路并不平凡。时间回到2019年10月19日——第七届世界军人运动会的第一个比赛日，金泳德与队友谢振翔、姚兆楠合作，获得了男子25米手枪军事速射团体金牌，这也是中国代表团在本届军运会上的首枚金牌。"

     From Google Translate: "When speaking of dreams, Jin Yongde—a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and deputy captain and coach of the Bayi Shooting Team under the Military Sports Training Center of the CMC Training and Administration Department—speaks with firm conviction. As the winner of the first gold medal at the Wuhan Military World Games, his journey in pursuit of his dream was far from ordinary. Rewind to 19 October 2019—the first day of competition at the 7th Military World Games. Jin Yongde teamed up with Xie Zhenxiang and Yao Zhaonan to win the gold medal in the men's 25m military rapid-fire pistol team event; this marked the first gold medal for the Chinese delegation at the games."

  5. Zhang, Qin 张芹 (2019-10-19). Yu, Xiao 于晓 (ed.). "43岁老将金泳德领衔中国八一射击队夺武汉军运会首金" [43-Year-Old Veteran Jin Yongde Leads China's Bayi Shooting Team to Win First Gold at Wuhan Military World Games] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2026-06-22. Retrieved 2026-06-22.

     The article notes: "第七届世界军人运动会(以下简称“武汉军运会”)19日展开射击项目的争夺，中国八一射击队在老将金泳德的带领下以1747环的总成绩斩获男子25米手枪军事速射团体项目金牌，这也是本届赛事诞生的首枚金牌。"

     From Google Translate: "Competition in the shooting events of the 7th Military World Games (hereinafter referred to as the "Wuhan Military World Games") began on the 19th. Led by veteran Jin Yongde, the Chinese Bayi Shooting Team won the gold medal in the men's 25m military rapid-fire pistol team event with a total score of 1,747 points; this was the first gold medal awarded at the games. ... 在1998年曼谷亚运会上，金泳德一路过关斩将，夺得男子25米标准手枪射击项目冠军，攀上射击生涯第一座高峰。20多年来，他不断刷新射击纪录，仅在第五届世界军人运动会上就摘得3枚金牌。"

     From Google Translate: "Competition in the shooting events of the 7th Military World Games (hereinafter referred to as the "Wuhan Military World Games") began on the 19th. Led by veteran Jin Yongde, the Chinese Bayi Shooting Team won the gold medal in the men's 25m military rapid-fire pistol team event with a total score of 1,747 points; this was the first gold medal awarded at the games. ... At the 1998 Bangkok Asian Games, Jin Yongde triumphed in the men's 25m standard pistol event, reaching the first major peak of his shooting career. Over the past two decades, he has repeatedly broken shooting records, winning three gold medals at the 5th Military World Games alone."

  6. Wang, Dong 王东 (2019-10-20). "英雄本色 军人风采" [The True Colors of a Hero: The Demeanor of a Soldier]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). p. 5. Archived from the original on 2026-06-22. Retrieved 2026-06-22.

     The article notes: "在18日晚举行的第七届军运会开幕式上，射击名将金泳德成功完成了“和平荣光”火炬的传递使命。时隔不到12小时，他便现身赛场，与队友携手并肩，摘下这枚宝贵的金牌。作为八一射击队副队长，金泳德此前曾带队参加过三届军运会，共获得16枚金牌，其中在印度举办的第四届世界军人运动会上，他的团队一举拿下9枚金牌。"

     From Google Translate: "At the opening ceremony of the 7th Military World Games held on the evening of the 18th, renowned shooter Jin Yongde successfully carried out the mission of passing the "Glory of Peace" torch. Less than 12 hours later, he appeared at the competition venue, joining forces with his teammates to clinch this precious gold medal. As the deputy captain of the Bayi Shooting Team, Jin has previously led the team in three editions of the Military World Games, winning a total of 16 gold medals; notably, at the 4th Military World Games held in India, his team secured nine gold medals in a single outing."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jin Yongde (Chinese: 金泳德) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:23, 22 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.

Vadim Shpak

Vadim Shpak (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. Sources are either not independent of him (interviews, websites of companies he is affiliated with) or not WP:SIGCOV (sources that only demonstrate that he is part of organizations or teaches at a university). Cicada1010 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Singapore. Cicada1010 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The notability guidelines (WP:GNG) state the following:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The significant coverage guideline (WP:SIGCOV) states the following:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..

Obviously, sources that establish notability must be independent and secondary, and so interviews generally have limited utility for this purpose. However, while the AsiaTechDaily article cited^[1] is titled as an interview, the actual article reads more like an editorial profile. In my view, this would meet the definition for an independent secondary source. This article comes from a pretty reliable industry publication with editorial oversight, and clearly meets WP:SIGCOV as defined above.

To establish WP:GNG, although multiple sources are generally expected, this is not a hard requirement. My opinion is that the AsiaTechDaily article is enough here. While the other sources cited do not establish notability directly (independence and WP:SIGCOV concerns, as mentioned in the nomination), I believe they give valid context that the source cited is verifiable/objective as required by WP:GNG. As8237 (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete reads like a classic WP:PROMO, with no significant independent coverage in reliable sources other than primary sources. Fails WP:BIO. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Dz5t 8O12. does not seem like the subject has done anything particularly notable. also want to note that article creator As8237 has disclosed a COI with the subject Rainsage (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn, and we are not CrunchBase. Sources are all self-published or interviews, neither of which contribute to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 26 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.

Makeup (2021 film)

Makeup (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails in WP:NFILM. Didn't find any critical reviews or anything to consider WP:NFIC. Won't mind withdrawing if someone can find a minimum of two reviews. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per meet WP:GNG. Aqsis Bey (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note for the closing admin: Aqsis Bey is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree. The controversies themselves were sufficiently covered in reliable and independent sources to make the film notable according to Wikipedia. Various articles prove that, so that GNG prevails even if NFIC or NFILM are possibly not met. ~2026-33518-93 (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment — I've never come across an AfD in which a film was saved for having coverage around its controversies, despite lacking a single review. I knew that reviews and/or national awards are the notability determinants for a film, superseding GNG. Please correct me if I'm wrong. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 11:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Raihanur (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing was found except thin sources. Doesn't meet WP:NFILM at all. Ontor22 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note for admin: This AfD and two other AfDs (1 and 2)- main page were created by the same user @Aqsis Bey and contain tricky biased comments from the same non-registered (WP:TA) user @Special:Contributions/~2026-33518-93. The pattern may warrant review for possible WP:SOCK or closely connected editing. I am not making a determination, but an administrative review may be appropriate. Ontor22 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are arguing a gng keep at least cite the source. Source analysis would be actually persuasive
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as there is notability as Bangladesh Film Censor board officially banned which got the film coverage as per WP:FILM. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Daily Ittefaq 2021-03-22	~ Partly sourced from director		~ Two paragraphs seem independent	~ Maybe
Prothom Alo 2019-12-06	Their source is the director's social media post			✘ No
Jago News 24 2019-08-21	Their source is the producer			✘ No
Amader Shomoy 2019-10-07	Their source is a presser			✘ No
Prothom Alo 2019-12-06	Same as Amader Shomoy			✘ No
bdnews24.com 2025-01-10				✔ Yes
Channel i 2019-11-04	Sources are director and producer			✘ No
Samakal 2019-08-23	Their source is the director			✘ No
Daily Inqilab 2019-08-23	Their source is the producer			✘ No
Jago News 24 2019-08-21	Sources are the producer and director			✘ No
Prothom Alo 2024-12-23				✔ Yes
NTV 2021-03-12	The director is the source of all but one paragraph, and that isn't about the film			✘ No
Bangla Tribune 2025-01-10	Same as bdnews24.com			✘ No
RTV 2021-02-10				✔ Yes
News24BD 2024-10-27	Government press release		~ Six sentences	~ Maybe
Prothom Alo 2025-01-10				✔ Yes
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

• Keep Most of the sources are not independent, they merely repeat what the director and producer want the public to know. There are no reviews. There are, however, five sources largely independent of the film that contain significant coverage of its convoluted release. Wikipedia has articles about films that were never distributed, and even ones that were never completed, so it is possible to have an article about a film without reviews. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:33, 23 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.

Abu al-Hasan al-Karaji

Abu al-Hasan al-Karaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this biography fails to meet Wikipedia's core criteria under WP:NOTABILITY. The article relies entirely on primary historical documents and medieval polemical texts to highlight the subject as a rare Shafi'i scholar who rejected Ash'arism in his era. While this theological stance is noted in primary records, a comprehensive search yields a complete absence of reliable, independent secondary sources providing detailed, analytical, or comprehensive biographical coverage of Abu al-Hasan al-Karaji. Under WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTORIGINAL, extracting a historical figure's name from isolated polemic or primary creedal mentions to construct a standalone biographical entry constitutes original research. Because the subject lacks significant, sustained coverage in modern academic historical scholarship, the article should be deleted. Ayaltimo (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The page is merely a translation of the page from the Arabic wiki. I did not find any substantial evidence of Karaji denouncing Ash'aris either. But go ahead and delete the page. I've already saved the page in the Internet Archive machine anyways. There are also tons of articles about scholars that have literally lesser sources than this, but hey, go ahead.User:M. Adrian Jurhami (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Please note that this nomination is not personal, nor is it about theological stances or biases. It is strictly a routine administrative process based on Wikipedia’s core content standards.

As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other poorly sourced articles does not justify creating new ones that do not meet guidelines. Furthermore, translation from another language edition does not automatically grant a subject notability if the underlying references do not meet the English Wikipedia's strict requirements for independent, modern secondary scholarship (WP:NOTABILITY). Because we both agree that there is a lack of substantial secondary source evidence for a detailed biography, deletion is the standard encyclopedic procedure to maintain site quality. Respectfully, Ayaltimo (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of the Arabic Wikipedia, can you contribute their as you do here to correct creeds in that Wikipedia? As many if not most of the scholars that you edited or listed their creeds here as Ash'aris in this Wikipedia such as al-Daraqutni, al-Sulami, Abu Uthman Al-Sabuni, al-Baghawi and others are all listed as "Atharis" in that Arabic Wikipedia since a long time ago. So can you do something to finally fix that?! ~2026-33182-39 (talk) 08:59, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Lists of people. Jolyfize (talk) 07:59, 7 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)} 13:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the sourcing looks fine to me. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is literally no discussion of the sourcing in this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as he was a major scholar and is documented in major works and meets notability under WP:SCHOLAR.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 07:48, 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.

Keisuke Ota (footballer, born 1981)

Keisuke Ota (footballer, born 1981) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only 1 source for BLP since 2024. The only source is an announcement for retirement. LillaRis87 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. LillaRis87 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a number of sources present in the article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Aneirinn (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  It would be appreciated if there's source analysis. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks notable at face value, but most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Among those who are not published by his own employers, is WP:ROUTINE, has no archived version and neither does . Geschichte (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per sources on ja.wiki and WP:COMMONSENSE, over 300 professional appearances. GiantSnowman 18:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify The article currently does not meet WP:SIGCOV, however, it seems that the player is well established as a professional athlete for several years WP:COMMONSENSE; perhaps it needs to incubate for a little bit longer so that more sources can be found and cited in accordance with WP:GNG. Blubberypancakes (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this is a BLP and expectations for sportspeople have hardened I'm going to ask those arguing commonsense to look at sources and argue which ones meet our requirements, rather than relying on ja which I vaguely recall has much less developed notability standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – In addition to his career as a player, he currently works at the University of Central Florida: . Svartner (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why should that particular job tip the scales? Geschichte (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  It complements this, and the sources provide all the relevant information about his career. Svartner (talk) 01:41, 12 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)} 14:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Svartner, whom I trust on the matters of football players. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – The article only provides two sources, both of which are primary. I asked for source analysis; see above. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When source analysis is requested it's helpful to actually provide one, otherwise the closer doesn't have anything to assess arguments against.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as he played J1 league that satisfies WP:NFOOT, but sourcing needs to approved. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC) 07:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Dz5t 8O12: WP:NFOOT no longer exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• You are right, however under the updated WP:FOOTYN my argument still stands. Thank you for pointing it out.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• At WP:FOOTYN, did you see the box in "Player notability" which states the player-specific notability guidelines no longer apply? That means Ota's J1 appearances may be an indicator for notability but no more than that. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Dz5y 8O12 frequently posts opininons that show little experience with deletion policy, cf. contributions. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Per above. Almost 300 pro games and has sources including offline ones. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:09, 24 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.

2026 British cabinet reshuffle

2026 British cabinet reshuffle (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)

Please note I am not the original proposer for this and will stay neutral in the following discussion. User @Simon373737 raised this originally, but their AfD notice seems to have gotten broken in terms of links etc. This is their proposal on why this page should be deleted or merged elsewhere:

"This was not really a reshuffle. It is conventional to discuss this level of ministerial turnover as ministerial changes between Cabinet Reshuffles (e.g. resignation of Louise Haigh). In this case, one person resigned from Cabinet, one person was promoted from attending Cabinet to full member, and one person was promoted to attend Cabinet. That's all. The rest of the changes were junior ministers, whips and PPSs. The media and government did not describe this as a reshuffle. All of the ministerial and PPS changes are already captured on the Starmer ministry article. A separate 2026 Labour Party leadership crisis article also exists and does (or could) include everything from this article." RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping to @Simon373737, I don't believe your previous AfD went through correctly RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for letting me know and fixing this request. Simon373737 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep- I think we should change the title to something else like list of departures and add others who reisgned before or just call it list of resignations and promotions during the 2026 British government crisis Ivanhardybirt (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into the government crisis page. One (Cabinet) resignation does not a reshuffle make. Even with the Defence Secretary's resignation yesterday - which as far as I can tell doesn't even come under the scope of this article at present - a full reshuffle isn't on the cards. There's nothing in this article which wouldn't suit the 2026 Labour Party leadership crisis page. OGBC1992 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge into 2026 Labour Party leadership crisis as this event was the precursor to many of the developments in the leadership crisis and considering that a lot of this is WP:ROUTINE coverage. I will nominate articles of similar cabinet changes such as 2014 British cabinet reshuffle for deletion too and notify everyone involved in this discussion because the significance of the 2014 reshuffle is far less obvious to someone who did not follow politics closely in 2014. On second thought, I should not nominate many articles for deletion so randomly like I previously mentioned but I have nominated the 2014 British cabinet reshuffle article, there are also international examples of cabinets being reshuffled that have received articles. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve commented on the 2014 British cabinet reshuffle article discussion to say keep. That was definitely a reshuffle. Simon373737 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge to 2026 Labour Party leadership crisis the article is describing a ministerial fallout as a result of a leadership crisis. The reshuffle is a subset and consequence of the this leadership crisis. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember is correct if the PM had initiated these changes this would be correctly characterized as a reshuffle however, these changes were not initiated by Starmer and his hand was forced. Some of the sources also describe the intra-party infighting and resignations not a reshuffle, therefore I'd have concerns on the basis of WP:V and WP:NPOV. These sources don't necessarily back the article and framing it in this manner is unduly charitable to Starmer. AadamentAardvark (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I have added the new appointments made in June. It could be renamed to 2026 British cabinet reshuffles in the future if there are any more major changes in the rest of the year. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge into 2026 Labour leadership crisis article. Now Starmer has announced his plans to resign, I think we can safely agree that these two (fairly minor) sets of ministerial changes following resignations are not going to develop into a full Cabinet reshuffle. All of the 2026 ministerial changes will be captured on the Starmer ministry article anyway. Simon373737 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with 2026 Labour Party leadership crisis as per User:AadamentAardvark. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. Not a reshuffle, obviously. Original research, as sources do not call it a reshuffle. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate the edits @Moondragon21 has made, pluralising to Reshuffles makes even less sense. A reshuffle is a significant turnover of personnel. If multiple minor changes happen throughout a year, that is the opposite to a reshuffle - and what the 'Changes to the Starmer ministry' section of that page is explicitly designed for. OGBC1992 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)