Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 June 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

More information < June 22, June 24 > ...
< June 22 June 24 >
Close

Patrick McCormack


Patrick McCormack (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)

Biographical subject not shown to meet WP:NBIO or WP:SIGCOV. In terms of the sources, the main four (BabylonRadio 2021, CelticLife 2021, PantiBar 2021, GCN 2022) do not represent in-depth coverage and are not intellectually independent of each other (all contain effectively the same short text and derived from and/or specifically mention the same source podcast/blogpost). The fifth (Philips 2024 p.229) is a trivial passing mention (in which the subject's name/DOB simply appears in a list of 12 other names/DOBs - with no biographical information provided). In terms of the claims to notability, all of the sources (and the original blogpost) directly acknowledge that there is "[no] more available information about McCormack, apart from this historical [birth/death] record". While, perhaps, there is a possible WP:ATD/R target in LGBTQ history in Ireland (where the subject's name appears alongside other named people), personally I don't support this. As the main claim to notability, as "Dublin's [or Ireland's] first transgender person", doesn't appear to be established. Given that (a) the original blogposter frames/titles their research as a qualified question ("Dublin's first recorded transgender person? [question mark]"). And (b) so do the derived webpages ("could be the first transgender person recorded in Dublin"). And (c) the sources (like Philips 2024 p.229) list other transgender people who predate the subject. Like James Barry (c.1789–1865; born, died and "outed" decades before subject here).... Guliolopez (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Trump Towers Pune

AfDs for this article:
Trump Towers Pune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page should be deleted and redirect on List of Trump Tower-related places. Failing notability. No need for this page. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Stefan Gradmann


Stefan Gradmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article currently has only very limited citations and none that verify the notability under WP:PROF. There was a previous discussion that some additional citations might be possible Talk:Stefan_Gradmann#Notability_&_verifiability and whether WP:NAUTHOR is an appropriate standard for evaluating this article. Dbsseven (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age


List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age (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 see no indication that this is an encyclopedic topic. To me this, this seems like a collection of trivia. I honestly cannot image that anyone would care whether Henry Sewell lived 26,182 days or 26,282 days. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with your statement about it not being encyclopedic as you literally could just go to List of prime ministers of New Zealand,
and sort them. However on my part, if someone didn’t want to waste their time they could definitely have this article as handy as could be. Mrmacrobloxteleb (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Francesco del Bene


Francesco del Bene (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)

Reads like a résumé. The only thing that might hold notability is the Knight of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, but even then it's sourced to a suspicious website called World Business Insights. Google Search also finds this article on Aspire Navigators. Both front pages seem to feature a man named Serge Deuvletian, so it seems this is a network of fake magazine mills puffed up with generic news stories. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Takaya Oishi


Takaya Oishi (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 good claim to notability, having only appeared 14 times (and probably only parts of those games) in Japan's top league. Moreover no WP:GNG. No sources in Japanese Wikipedia. Article creator was part of a sock farm and is blocked indefinitely. They have had hundreds of articles deleted. Geschichte (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ketan Patel (investor)


Ketan Patel (investor) (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 sources present are mostly about his company rather than the person. Fails GNG Thilsebatti (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I reviewed all the sources and they're actually not mostly about his company Greater Pacific Capital. They are about his work at several companies, and his book and published research. The writings unfortunately are not themselves reliable sources. We need to see what people write about his writings for them to be encyclopedic. But what we do have is The Independent calling him an expert on global economics, lumping him with Thomas Friedman; The Globe and Mail profiling him years ago when he was Goldman Sach's Chief Futurologist; a review of his book in Business Standard; some modest hits on Google Scholar showing his citations; and coverage in Mint of a $750M fund his current company launched, out of a planned $1B total. I'd like to see independent sourcing for his early life, and anything Force for Good. but it's clear from the Globe and Mail coverage that Patel is press shy, so building this out will always be a challenge. So there's nothing that's in itself a slam dunk, but putting it together looks like enough for this to squeak by. I wavered between weak keep and weak delete, but feel better on the weak keep side. That being said, I encourage the author to disclose any conflict of interest, since they have a limited editing history, and stated this came about from seeing Patel speak at an AI conference, yet they had two professional quality photos of him to upload, claiming to be their own work. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Jana Aastha National Weekly


Jana Aastha National Weekly (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)

Totally unsourced for years, not finding any secondary coverage. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 09:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • draftify - From what i found on 1, 2, 3, 4 weekly seems to be notable(for controversial topics). i think it's better to draftify . Khagendra (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: it is unclear why we would draftify here if the article was indeed notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ailinglaplap Airok Airport


Ailinglaplap Airok Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this airport. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Marshall Islands. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: indeed, I would have been tempted to PROD this article if it hadn't been AFDd... single sentence lede, unsourced destination table with two destinations, and an empty infobox save for coordinates. The only source does nothing save to verify the airfield's existence. Danners430 tweaks made 12:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Gayathri Ashok


Gayathri Ashok (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 significant role is in the movie Member Rameshan 9aam Ward while other roles being minor. Fails NACTOR. Sources are of WP:NEWSORGINDIA in nature. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Pârâul Negru (Someș)


Pârâul Negru (Someș) (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)

At best a very minor river, supposedly a tributary of the Apa Caldă in Cluj County, but not shown on this detailed hiking map. Was prod-ed and de-prod-ed in May 2026 referring to this news article, which refers to a different river in Sibiu County. Markussep Talk 11:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Dn42


Dn42 (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)

adding more news articles on it doesn't make it any more notable. it just makes it even more of an advertisement. AFD even more so! RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I'm not going to give a view up or down on this, but this seems to be a case of a retaliatory AfD against dn42 as a project for legitimate moderation actions which the project has taken. I am aware that that doesn't mean that the page does not, indeed, merit removal. Ellenor2000 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Bias detected! what "legitimate moderation actions" are you even talking about? if you mean one of their admins calling people "help vampires" for accepting their offers of help, and then freaking out (Redacted) when they see this nomination and banning me becuase they can't handle their own medicine.. well, it sucks to suck. delete this thing already. it's not notable at all. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Nothing about the legitimacy of their moderation actions prejudices the notability or lack thereof of dn42.
    The moderation actions I speak of were taken within the 4 hours immediately preceding your ProD. Did you believe DN42 was notable yesterday? Ellenor2000 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    No, i did not! I never believed it was notable enough for a wikipedia article. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Are you referring to the AfD party in Germany? What does a technical article about an overlay network have to do with politics? Mark22k (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, I just noticed the abbreviation now. Mark22k (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Articles For Deletion. Ellenor2000 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Neutral while the scope of this article is fairly limited, this network is quite notable in the field of Hacker culture, with quite a lot of talks around it being made. FKszczot (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    There are dn42 meetups (self-organized meetups, if I'm not mistaken) at CCC (Chaos Computer Club) events, and several Freifunk communities use it. Mark22k (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep While the article could use some copyediting to better adhere to WP standards...there's nothing in it that raises the red flag to the point of deleting it. Fine as is. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Just in case my position on this isn't clear... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 00:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think restating your position like this is appropriate, and I don't think I've seen proposers do so on AfD discussions before. Ellenor2000 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Third editors, feel free to correct me on this. Ellenor2000 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep dn42 forms a notable and relevant part of hacker culture. It is unclear to me what supposedly changed about this that merits deleting this article after 16 years. Unfortunately the person creating this request for deletion has made no effort to elaborate on their reasoning. Lutoma (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    It's off-platform, but he was banned from their support and social IRC channels for tedious behaviour and after bothering the network's support channel, had his account suspended from hackint. I am not privy to the exact reasons because I've had him on ignore on IRC since time immemorial. He has form for this; he's also put Libera Chat's article through the process (the result was keep because the subject is notable), also citing non-notability, apparently also after getting thusly banned for tediosity. Ellenor2000 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Trying to harass me for things off wikipedia doesn't help your case, Ellenor. Nor does my nomination of Libera Chat matter, as it was relatively unknown at the time. Please stop your continued harassment. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 02:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    It is hardly harassment, but provides important context on this deletion request. You also still have not produced any substantive rationale for your deletion request apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also just noticed that you initially attempted to remove the article using WP:PROP, which is explicitly only intended for "uncontroversial" deletions where "no opposition to the deletion is expected". This is clearly not the case here and leads me to believe that this deletion attempt was created in bad faith as part of a personal vendetta (as others have speculated). Lutoma (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    You have reported me for vandalism with no conceivable page that I've vandalized (presumably it's this AfD discussion?). The correct venue for said complaint, as you have been told, is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I trust the administrators will adjudicate the matter fairly. Ellenor2000 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep As a member of dn42, I would of course be happy if the article stayed.
- dn42 exists. It currently has over 1,000 routes.
- It is active. There are many self-hosted services there (e. g. HackINT IRC network, games, chats, blogs, search engine, Looking Glasses, Network Maps, Speedtests, Forums, ...).
- The article is relevant. When I want information, Wikipedia is one of the first places I go. If you’re looking into overlay networks, you’re bound to come across dn42. Other overlay networks also have articles on Wikipedia. It would be a shame if dn42 were left out.
- Unlike other networks such as I2P or Tor, dn42 does not aim to provide anonymity or similar features, nor does it simply seek to provide a secure transport layer like Yggdrasil; rather, its goal is to actively explore network technologies. This makes it unique among overlay networks.
- DN42 meetups take place at many Chaos-related events. For example, https://events.ccc.de/congress/2025/hub/en/event/detail/dn42-network-operators-meetup or https://entropia.de/index.php?title=Spezial%3ASuche&search=dn42
- The dn42 is quite old. It originated early on from the diac24 (a smaller version of today's dn42; see also the "History" section in the article). So dn42 isn't just a small, short-lived project - it has a real history behind it. This history is also interesting from a technical standpoint. At the time, different technologies and documentation formats were used (text files instead of Git registry).
- The dn42 is unique. If you don't have the resources (e.g., money, as in my case) to participate in the "real" Internet of the IANA, the dn42 offers a great opportunity to experience similar challenges. Furthermore, the dn42 is well-suited for beginners, since you can experiment with much more than on the real Internet (e.g., offering transit) and don’t have to worry as much if you misconfigure something.
For context: dn42 is not a commercial entity. It is a network of many individuals who experiment with Internet technologies such as BGP. While there is a central registry, everything else is decentralized.
Further context: I haven’t read through the entire IRC history, but Ringtail seems to have wanted to join dn42 since around 2024. Apparently, he had problems registering with the central registry and subsequently connecting to other participants. It seems the impression arose that Ringtail was trying to waste other people’s time and effort. At some point, he was then banned from IRC. And he wanted others to deregister him. After his request was not fulfilled (among other reasons, because it is technically impossible with Git), he proposed deleting the Wikipedia article. This could lead to the suspicion that he is doing this out of revenge. Whether that is the case, I can only speculate; I do not know his motivation (or rather, I can only guess).
Personally, I hope this deletion request is closed just as quickly as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libera_Chat. Mark22k (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
The more people bring my edit history up, the less relevant it becomes. I honestly don't care, and i don't understand why you guys do. This isn't some sort of precedent-setting incident, and just further proves my claims of stalking, harassment and brigading.
Just NOMINATING this for deletion seems to have royally pissed off the DN42 community. You wanna fight dirty? fine, i'll drag ya into the mud with me.
I was told i was always welcome to ask questions and ask for advice on how to configure my router to work with dn42, but whenvever i did, i was told i was a "help vampire" due to having difficulties with configuration and eventually quieted, then banned, without a reason. Then when i stuck up for myself as anyone rightly would, I was given a 90 day ban from their network, of which i have zero plans to ever return.
The behaviour of the Dn42 members like you, ellenore, Grobe0ba , JLu5, Kioubit and others is beyond immature and beyond apalling, and i can't help but laugh at the insanity and arrogance prsented by you.
Mark22k, you can speculate all you want, but again, the more you obsess about Libera_Chat for whatever reasonm the more it proves me right.
DN42? no, DO NOT 42!
RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 02:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • For further context, I have witnessed some canvassing-like activity in the DN42-related IRC channels in the time since the ProD and this AfD were posted. The canvassing seemed neutral enough, but it has brought a non-neutral, involved "keep" party out of the woodwork, evidenced in Mark22k's keep recommendation. RingtailedFox reported me for vandalism, and Mvcg66b3r reported Grobe0ba for vandalism related to edits apparently intended to disrupt this AfD (which, yes, would be vandalism). Ellenor2000 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for admitting the pro-DN42 brigading going on. even more evidence for speedy deletion if they're that desperate to keep the article! No, elenor... Nominating an article for deletion IS NOT VANDALISM. You guys really do get pissed off whenever someone either asks for help or disagrees with you! Too bad, deal with it. Just stop the seething and malding in here. go back to DN42's irc server if you wanna do that! Wikipedia is NOT your hugbox! RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    I don't see a grounds for speedy which would fit (the closest I see is CSD A7, but credible claims of significance are made; in the ANI thread regarding grobe0ba you also claimed CSD G11, though not by name, which doesn't seem right). The tone of the article is maybe a bit unencyclopedic, but in the realm of deletion, it would seem that the AfD process is the correct process, not speedy or Pro-D (which was disputed wihin the 7 day window). Ellenor2000 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Need i remind everyone that Wikipedia is NOT your advertising service, either? If your only claim to fame, or ability for people to find you, is a wikipedia article... then you don't meet notability requirements! If you want to be found, go rent a Google search ad or something. For a group that enjoyed constantly telling me "RTFM", you definitely don't do the same for OTHER websites, especially ones beyond your petty control. Too bad, thems the rules! RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I found out about DN42 by word of mouth, and didn't know there was a Wikipedia article about it until you Pro-D'd it. Ellenor2000 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment look i made my account after seeing the discussion on the article but i've found like 3 academic sources from 2018, 2022, and 2023 that discuss dn42 just searching google scholar for "decentralized network 42" so i mean dn42 is being discussed academically across multiple years idk how helpful this is but do what you will with the info Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I mean, ellenor2000 already said she saw them planning to flood this place with "keep" votes on the dn42 irc server, so that's brigading and tosses the legitimacy of any fair vote on this matter here... it proves my point that it's not notable of an organization if they have to resort to such behaviour in the first place.
the fact that they erupt with such rage over something so inconsequential is deeply disturbing on many levels. No notable organization would have its members behave in such a manner. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
that's cool and all dog but i ain't used irc since like 2005 and got here from the giant thing on the dn42 article that says it being discussed for deletion, i aint "voting" anything but there are sources from google scholar that i listed and this place says according to this "the minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, and a Google News search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects" like i said y'all do with em what you will but my point was mainly searching for the full name versus dn42 produced more mentions Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
you write like you weren't even born yet in 2005... and if the only thing the dn42 crew has to do all day is monitor their own wikipedia article and sends out the bat-signal the second it's nominated for deletion... lol. lmao, even. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 08:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting per WP:REOPEN. No valid reason for a procedural close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 10:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

United Nations Youth Association of the Philippines


United Nations Youth Association of the Philippines (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)

Totally unsourced, previously moved to draft (Draft:United Nations Youth Association of the Philippines) and restored without substantial improvement. Did not find WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Keith Colon


Keith Colon (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:BLP with one source that confirms the existence of the subject but nothing beyond that. Previously moved to draft (Draft:Keith Colon) and restored with slight expansion (the unsourced "Professional Career" section was added) but still not nearly well sourced enough and I am finding minimal coverage. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Praxis Business School, Kolkata


Praxis Business School, Kolkata (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:NORG or WP:GNG; no independent secondary coverage (only refs are promotional or primary); notability and verification maintainance templates up since 2018 - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 10:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing per author's clarification, I think it was my mistake to nominate without properly checking source. Apologies (non-admin closure) AristocrSirr 🗨️ 14:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Abnash House

Abnash House (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)

Reads more like an advertisement, I don't think it passes GNG or SIGCOV. AristocrSirr 🗨️ 09:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. GEOFEAT requires "verifiable information beyond simple statistics", and the first citation alone provides this. Why not simply withdraw the nomination, so that we can spend our limited time on expanding this and other articles? Edwardx (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Isn't WP:NBUILD the relevant criterion? That says standard notability requirements apply. SmartSE (talk) 13:31, 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.

Romania national under-21 football team results


Romania national under-21 football team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST, no evidence that these have been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Romania national under-21 football team results (1977–1979)


Romania national under-21 football team results (1977–1979) (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) 09:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Croatia national under-21 football team results (2020–present)


Croatia national under-21 football team results (2020–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) 09:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Croatia national under-21 football team results (2010–2019)


Croatia national under-21 football team results (2010–2019) (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) 09:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Croatia national under-21 football team results (2000–2009)


Croatia national under-21 football team results (2000–2009) (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) 09:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Croatia national under-21 football team results (1942–1999)


Croatia national under-21 football team results (1942–1999) (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) 09:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Techo International Airport (Colombia)


Techo International Airport (Colombia) (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)

Defunct airport which closed in 1959, not convinced it's notable Danners430 tweaks made 08:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Colombia. Danners430 tweaks made 08:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: this was the first airport in South America (according to ) and Colombia's main airport for 30 years; there are plenty of sources online, mostly in Spanish, and doubtless many more offline sources given the era we're talking about. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment (probably delete). You claim it was the "first airport in South America": well maybe, your source says it was inaugurated in 1929. Los Cerrillos in Santiago dates from May 1929, so if Techo was first it was by a matter of weeks at most. Incidentally, ref. 1 in the article leads to "Not Found. The requested URL was not found on this server". I'm not impressed. Athel cb (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not particularly impressed by the current state of the article and its sourcing either, but that's not a reason to delete it. I don't know whether it was the first or not, but we have a source claiming it was, and enough other sources to meet WP:GNG. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Annisa Suci Ramadhani


Annisa Suci Ramadhani (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)

Initially I speedy deleted this article, which to my mind meets both the A7 and the G11 criteria. Following a deletion review, where other users did not agree, I've restored it. The subject is a local politician, who would not meet the notability criteria for the English Wikipedia, where we don't include local mayors, council leaders, etc. The criteria may be different at the Indonesian Wikipedia, whence the article was initially translated. Following this, the article was substantially edited by another user with an undeclared COI, which didn't help. The article is laid out in the form of a CV and most earlier versions used the subject's forename, often an indication that they are known to the author, though in this case that is not so. I do not believe that the references provided (one of which is from LinkedIn!) are enough to demonstrate individual notability, so for me it's just a question of whether a "Regent", described in the Regent article as "the English translation of bupati, the head of a kabupaten (second level local government)", is automatically notable. Deb (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Elected leader of the Dharmasraya Regency, which has a population over 240,000. This is not a local mayor or council leader. The position is Regency (Indonesia).
More coverage of Indonesia is needed, not less. The well referenced id:Pemilihan umum Bupati Dharmasraya 2024 needs translations as well, to “2024 Dharmasraya Regental Election. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete, but could be persuaded the other way. Here on en.wiki, the relevant guideline on automatic politicial notability is WP:NPOL, which says major local political figures (which I think applies to an Indonesian regent) are presumed notable if they have have received significant press coverage; and just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. So this boils down to the quality and depth of available sourcing. The article does have several sources which appear to be plausibly independent press outlets (in addition to that LinkedIn page). However, to someone like me not from Indonesia, they feel like biographical material, press release-type material, noncritically repeated when a candidate for important local elected office appears. I don't (yet) see the type of editorially independent analysis I think we need for GNG. I try to be sensitive to geographical bias in situations like these, and have looked up 3 random cities with comparable population size (~250k) in Canada; we do have articles on all 3 mayors, but in one case it is a stub that is marginal, and in the other 2, there is a significantly richer and longer press trace and political career on which to ground an article. So I end up, for now, on the delete side. But weakly so, and would switch if anyone could pinpoint 1 or more of the sources here (or provide additional ones) which exhibit genuine editorial independence and independent insight, from which an article could be written that is more than just a CV. Martinp (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
She is weak on NPOL, low press coverage, because it was an election with a single candidate. A better solution than deletion is to write 2024 Dharmasraya Regental Election, for which the Indonesian article is well sourced, and to consider merging Annisa Suci Ramadhani into that, if even post-election coverage is not there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dharmasraya Regency is only one of the 19 subdivisions of West Sumatra Province, making the regent a local elected official. As a regent, some coverage is expected, mostly from local news outlets, which I do not think is sufficient to establish notability.
Most of the references in the article also focus on the election itself, especially since she ran unopposed against the empty ballot. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
It is worth remembering that NPOL is not an exclusive criteria. Not passing NPOL means you refer to GNG, not a disqualification. Juxlos (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
IMO, GNG and NPOL are the qualifying criteria to have article in WP. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Please give NPOL another read.
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
There is no requirement for NPOL to be passed for GNG to work. That is in NPOL itself. Juxlos (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep while not explicitly in WP:NPOL, regents/mayors in Indonesia have a surprising amount of political authority; they are often elected with comparable numbers of votes to a British MP (in this person's case, ~65 thousand) in the small-to-medium sized districts. I have added some coverage of her ~16 month so far term; there are unsurprisingly many press releases if you look up online, but there are adequate amounts of sufficiently independent WP:RS (e.g. Antara, the Sawit website) to pass WP:GNG. Juxlos (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, a regent will naturally receive some local coverage. This is reflected in the references cited in the article, many of which come from local outlets, such as Antara Sumbar (the West Sumatra branch of Antara), Langgam.id, Regional Kompas, and Minangsatu.com. However, I do not think this level of local coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
And what is the issue with local (provincial branch of a national newspaper (Kompas), news agency (Antara), and regional news website for a province of 6 million people) coverage? There are no policies against local newspapers, only WP:ROUTINE; and consider if these are routine:
Juxlos (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
First, thanks for adding and expanding. I agree with you that "weak on NPOL" means nothing if GNG is met (the logical flow is the other way - strong on NPOL would but sufficient but is not necessary). That said, I also don't think GNG is met yet. Your adds, while indeed independent coverage mentioning Annisa, are not really substantial coverage of Annisa as an individual. They appear to be routine coverage of declarations and decisions that you would expect arise in any such local unit, not any degree of reflection about this individual and what is specific about them or their activities in their role. So far, we have "X is the acclaimed candiate for [role] in [location]; her resume is Y" sources. And we have "X as [role] declared/decided Y about a local issue in [location]". What we need is "What is characteristic about X in [role] is Y" or "X's background of ... has influenced her actions by ..." or "X is notable for being the first / only ... in [role]" type coverage. Martinp (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Tempo is a national magazine. Between the profile there and the depth of more regional sources, I feel like GNG is met. As for the coverage focusing on the election... that's par for the course for Indonesian media. The "celebration of democracy" aspect of elections still hasn't died out in almost 30 years, even with a general autocratic backslide in the past decade, and the depth of coverage is significantly greater than one would expect at a comparable level in some countries (in Canada, for example, a county leader race would receive little coverage at the provincial level, let alone at the national level). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep For many of the reasons listed above, mainly that such a person is similar in representation to an elected MP here in Canada, and in this case has received enough news coverage IMO. Dan Carkner (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep, strong sources mean even putting aside WP:Politics this passes just under GNG Jishara (talk) 18:04, 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! 07:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Spyro: A Realm Beyond


Spyro: A Realm Beyond (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)

Nothing notable here and WP:TOOSOON at best. Tried to draftify but was immediately reverted. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It is a new entry in a very popular franchise that recently got announced. It was featured on Xbox's Game Showcase, and articles were written about it by IGN, Eurogamer, Variety, and The Guardian. I don't understand how this would not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Cloweee (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
It also already has a store page on places like Steam. Seems notable enough to me AkaAko (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • keep - there’s plenty of references for it to remain, it’s a notable franchise and information is likely to further expand the entry rapidly considering the game is likely to launch within 9 months - delays will only add. Little reason to draftify.
Awkwarddd (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I have improved the article, and I believe it deserves to remain rather than be deleted. The article can be further improved as more information about the game is announced. Ryan York (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete and keep working on the draft ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Draftify, this has potential for improvement but is not yet ready for mainspace. The article has been improved by User:Ryan York, so I change my vote to Keep. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Cloweee. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have edited while in you were in the midst of a draft move. No objections to dratifying this. There should also be a history merge ASAP. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete for now. Article has apparently been draftified successfully and a deletion in mainspace will allow it to be moved back when the time is right. Agree that it is TOOSOON to be in mainspace. GSK 18:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    • In light of the article being improved significantly by User:Ryan York, I change my vote to Keep. GSK 16:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Comment: If this article does end up being deleted in favor of the draft, I would suggest moving the existing mainspace article into the draft, as it is clearly the superior of the two at this point. GSK 16:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify; this will inevitably be in mainspace, being a main installment in a major video game series, but it's clearly not ready yet. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 23:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    • As with many others, I'm changing my vote to keep per recent edits. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 15:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Spyro for now. It is WP:TOOSOON to have an article (unless we have preview coverage/interview in the coming days). OceanHok (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:HEY, now that previews/interviews are used. OceanHok (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify. TOOSOON; Certainly notable, but IMO too specific to warrant a redirect. If it has already been draftified, then deletion for now is the only remaining step. Quibilia, et al. (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    • I concur that the changes are satisfactory for retention. I change my vote to Keep. Quibilia, et al. (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Not enough information, make a draft.
  • Draftify is the appropriate solution here - it may have been reverted, but that's a behavioural and not a procedural issue with whoever's reverting, is it not? As others have said, this will almost certainly enter mainspace in the long run. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep The announcement didn't reveal much but everything it did reveal is well sourced. Why delete this only to inevitably recreate it in a few months? Connor Behan (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    So much this! Like, there's already store pages for this. Even if I feel like the pre-order nonsense has gotten a little out of hand lately, it's clearly an established game already, not just a rumor or whatever. Plus there's already further info cropping up about it. AkaAko (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • That's assuming the release date doesn't get postponed or cancelled. We don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL that lets us see into the future and know for certain that "in a few months" an article will be warranted. Either way, draft space is better for games that only have run-of-the-mill announcements without a clearly established release date. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep It might just be my past as a journalist talking, but it seems like it'd be better to keep this page up than just remake it further down the road. Some information is more than no information, and there are official pages for the game already AkaAko (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
(Also sorry if my formatting is a bit off, I'm relatively new here) AkaAko (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it wouldn't need to be remade from scratch. Wikipedia has "Draft articles" where articles can be worked on before being published, and there's a draft of this at Draft:Spyro: A Realm Beyond. This article got turned into a draft but then split back into a main article due to a miscommunication between two users. ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I see many pre-release video game articles at AFC and NPP. I feel like there needs to be a clearer guidance on how WP:TOOSOON applies, because I think it can be simultaneously true that the current informal practice is to avoid passing articles for upcoming games founded only on press releases and announcements, whilst also accepting managing these can create odd procedural outcomes and that it doesn't take guesswork to anticipate that major studio games are going to attain general notability. Is this a conversation worth having on the WP:VG talk page? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    There is still some element of WP:CRYSTAL involved. For example, let's say one makes an article about Elder Scrolls VI the moment it was announced. The game's still vaporware 8 years later, and it's highly debatable whether a page on it should even exist now. No one can predict whether a major game will actually be released, and the game can still be cancelled if some corporate bigwig somewhere woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Until a game is virtually locked in for release or has significant coverage in its pre-release state, it is too soon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    I agree - some form of guidance is needed because pre-release certainty and significant coverage can coexist, or not. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep It will need to be created anyway and contains relevant info already. Victor.spain (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep It is official, but deleting it is just going to make it much worse to do more work. In addition, it is yet to be further developed so it's best to let the article grow down the road and keeping it maintained. 20chances (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep keep with current coverage and maintain with additional news sr1jj (talk), 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The best response to canvassing is a thorough source analysis. Can one of our AfD regulars help, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. New information about the game is coming out regularly through WP:RS. To address concerns raised about how to apply WP:TOOSOON, I propose adding sections similar to WP:UNRELEASED and WP:FUTUREALBUM to WP:NVG for clarity. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - So you mean to tell me all the reliable sources on earth aren't saving an article on an upcoming game if it's simply created before a certain date? Lordy loo you people are why chatbots are so popular. Americanfreedom (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Civility IPhoneEnthusiast (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    BOTH reliable sources AND significant coverage are needed. The lack of any information on the game beyond "ooh it has Spyro and is a new game where you can fly around freely" is the problem, and results in an undercooked article where notability is still a wild guess. An article with lots of hype and no substance would be the kind of thing chatbots specialize in, but not Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    The consensus is that coverage is significant. IPhoneEnthusiast (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I definitely see the WP:TOOSOON concerns but I think this one meets GNG, there are enough reliable sources with information from developer interviews and commentary on the trailers. MidnightMayhem (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the previous relister noted, a thorough source analysis would be helpful if canvassing may have compromised the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep: seems to pass GNG Jishara (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Latchkey Kids


Latchkey Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence film has entered production, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 07:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yuan Ping (scientist)


Yuan Ping (scientist) (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)

Appears to fail WP:NPROF, none of the awards are prominent enough for criteria 2 and the other citations are to Ping's own articles. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. She has done a significant amount of collaborative work where it appears that her group has done the theory part. Hence her area should be classified as fairly high citation, comparable to experimental sold-state chemistry/physics or materials science. On that basis her h-factor & total citations are a bit low, and there are no (as yet) "high-impact" papers which would be those with > 1K cites. The awards are important for her career, but are all starter grants. I dont see other SIGCOV. The accelleration of her cites/year is very encouraging, but it seems to still be a little early WP:TOOSOON by 2-3 years. It is a close call, and I would change my vote if someone finds additional indicators.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While she indeed doesn't have any work with citation counts in the thousands, I will add that having a dozen papers with > 100 citations in about as many years is a sign of her being a leader in her field. She also doesn't just have starter grants - she earned the NSF Career Award and the Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, both notable enough to have their own pages. Speaking as a researcher in a related field, I can say that while these fall short of the prestige conferred by more obvious indicators like an APS fellowship, it's definitely nothing to sneeze at either. I think it's borderline per above, but I'm inclined to keep at the moment. RaisedArizona (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Sloan and CAREER are both early-career awards, which we exclude from contributing to NPROF C2.1,2,3,4 JoelleJay (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if I agree with disallowing early career awards as a qualifying factor, but I will strike that point from the above per prior consensus regardless. RaisedArizona (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that this is a high-citation, high-publication field where someone in the 3rd year of their PhD can already have 15 papers and an h-index of 9, and where someone whose first publication was in 2020 can have 1200+ citations, an h-index of 14, and multiple Nature papers. I might do a full Scopus analysis of coauthors, but an initial pass over her relative citation record indicates a very strong start while still not quite at the level expected for NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Joelle's "strong start while still not quite at the level expected for NPROF" appears accurate to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. At her present rate of progress she'll be there in a few years, but she's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Arul Arulrajah


Arul Arulrajah (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)

Appears to fail WP:NPROF. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Malaysia, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not ready to vote on this one. His Google Scholar profile is impressive (h = 90), but virtually all of his well cited articles have numerous authors: I found only one with as few as two authors. The article itself says almost nothing to allow an assessment of whether he might satisfy other criteria. I think it needs to be expanded beyond the stub we see at present before a judgement can be made. Athel cb (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or Draftify - This article does not speak for itself. This article says nothing to tell a reader why the subject is notable. This article says only that he exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a good stub, and should be improved. However, we cannot ignore his citation record. I checked his University Page and the awards in the "About" section and the "Professional Activities" look to be consistent with his citation record.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:15, 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) 12:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep — his Google Scholar h-index is 90 with 28573 citations. His Scopus h-index is 81 with 28972 citations. These scores and citation numbers indicate that he is widely cited and has had an impact on his field, which meets WP:NACADEMIC#C1 criteria: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and also "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Admittedly I am not familiar with the publications associated with civil engineering, but these high h-index scores and high citation counts are compelling. If someone has commentary on the type of publications he is cited in, please ping me. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 21:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per the discussion above, the subject's academic impact is significant. A Google Scholar h-index of 90 with 28,573 citations, along with a Scopus h-index of 81 and 28,972 citations, is in itself a strong indication of notability. However, the article still has considerable room for improvement, particularly in terms of sourcing, structure, and coverage of the subject's achievements. sock strike CommanderF1 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --NYC Guru (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36527-78 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

FLS0005


FLS0005 (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)

Complete lack of notability for this, not a topic of interest outside the website of the company that released it. Fram (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Couldn't it be added to a Wikidata thing to gather more information so then it becomes a topic of interest? Jbiafra4prez (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Articles are not created to generate interest. Please see WP:NOTPUBLICITY. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Also nominated, for the same reason:

FLS0002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FLS0003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FLS0004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FLS0006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FLS1045 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all - Fails WP:GNG. These pages appear solely to be promotional; solely sourced to the record company sales site. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little more discussion with actual !votes could help this get a hard close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative


Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative (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)

Sometimes organisations are difficult to determine their notability, however you see a clearly non notable one when there are no secondary or at least reliable sources to back up the contents herein. Bearing this in mind, such resonates with this article as if fails WP:ORGCRIT which, for me, should there be WP:ATD at all, should never be considered. Nevertheless that doesn't mean it cannot be notable someday but it's obviously not for this time. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I adjusted some of the promotional language and added some citations, and I think the organization is borderline notable - there's at least some secondary independent coverage. I searched Wikipedia Library's default EBSCO database, Google Books, and JSTOR, but haven't exhaustively searched scholarly databases, so there could be more secondary coverage available. Note that another article was recently merged here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Pride Accelerated. If the organization doesn't seem sufficiently notable, a good alternative to deletion would be to merge this material to the article about the founder of the organization, Akudo Oguaghamba. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. This organisation has a few secondary source independent of the source that covered it, such as: Equitas.org (2). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (3): they covered it with other organisations. Rustin Times(10). Obinna Tony (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    I wonder what more you will say since you considered Equitas.org and Rustin Times as WP:RS. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 22:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    If a website is not on Wikipedia's backlist for sources, what makes it unreliable? Personal vibes & feelings? Provided they are actually reporting an objective fact? Not a contested information? (Rustin Times is an LGBTIQ Nigerian outlet. If traditional Nigerian media, are not reporting on LGBTIQ people, organizations, people, identities etc, who does it). Nigeria is a homophobic country and you are not an arbiter of what qualifies as a reliable source. Obinna Tony (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Obinna Tony, you've got to read WP:NGRS and for sources, you need to alert the reliable source noticeboard. WP:RSN. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rustin_Times_-_LGBTQ+_Nigerian_website Obinna Tony (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and LGBTQ+ studies. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean keep or possibly merge with Akudo Oguaghamba per Dreamyshade's statement. The article has decent sourcing although it could be improved, and this nomination has already inspired some improvements. The fairly recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Pride Accelerated decision to merge content into this article should be considered and given some weight here, as well. That discussion had low participation and was not explicitly evaluating the notability of this article, but editors there clearly did not find fault with this article and saw it as an appropriate place to cover content that should be covered somewhere on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Because the editors of that deletion discussion might have been in the quandary of saving an article, and so, they found this. Moreso when the so-called ATD now becomes non notable (of course as this one), we have an option of deletion. When you argue merg again to the parent article i.e. the foundere, I see a good point there but what actually made Akudo Oguaghamba notable is this organisation, and her article should have covered muc of this one.. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 23:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    This orgnization made its founder notable, but the organization itself is not notable? Interesting. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean keep. Would support merge as suggested by Dreamyshade and seconded by Myceteae. Also, per WP:BEFORE, nominating a very new article for deletion instead of allowing time for growth seems premature; a clean-up tag and/or article talk page discussion first would have been better. Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 01:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Pikkupapupata since clean-up tag and/or article talk page discussion are not possible because a BEFORE shows nothing notable about this organisation, what claims then are you holding to argue against the nominator, or importantly, for the keep of this article? Sources? That is what is an AFD discussion and not causality case. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    WP:BEFORE is clear about what to consider and steps to take before nominating an article for deletion. I don't see evidence that such steps and considerations were taken before this nomination, and I fail to understand how those steps were 'impossible'.
    And my initial reply to this discussion was clear enough. Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 15:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    That is nevertheless a reason to argue for keep. Unless you know not the value of AFD, show sources therefore to prove that no BEFORE (of sources), irrespective of time, was done. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 18:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    A clean-up tag is always possible. While WP:DILIGENCE can find sources to show that notability is achieved, any failure to find such is not proof that such sources do not exist, as not all reliable sources are online, nor are all online sources indexed appropriately by the key online tools. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:NORG. No independent sources seem to cover it significantly in-depth. It can be merged with Akudo Oguaghamba. I'm not sure whether the merge target is notable. But for now, the organization is at least not notable for a standalone article. — Raihanur (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • At this point, I am supporting merging into Akudo Oguaghamba.SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 19:19, 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! 06:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Improved Sexual Health and Rights Advocacy Initiative


Improved Sexual Health and Rights Advocacy Initiative (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:NORG. Running a WP:BEFORE shows nothing other than publications and passing mentions in unreliable sources. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Organizations, and Nigeria. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Source 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 are clear significant coverages and not passing mentions. Unreliable source is just personal assertion. Obinna Tony (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Obinna Tony (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Delete: Subject fails WP:ORGCRIT; all the sources are deficient towards the regular independent and reliable sourcing requirement, some do not give the substantial coverage we're looking for, while most are blatantly unreliable pieces and fail independence to provide a neutral coverage of this subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC) I'd rather not participate in an AfD that has emotions all over the place instead really following very simple laid-down notability guidelines. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    This user is accusing people of following emotions (because it’s not going their way) yet they were both on two nominated articles of mine by the same reviewer immediately they were tagged to be deleted. Begs about who is playing emotions. Obinna Tony (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Obinna Tony (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Weak keep. The New Telegraph coverage is not a passing mention. It is about their activities. There are some hits in Google Scholar. Some are just acknowledgements but the most promising one can't be read without paying. There's definitely some notability here. The question is whether it is enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    There is definitely no notability here, @DanielRigal, and I keep wondering why you want to use one source—The Telegraph—to conclude that there, ofcourse, "must" be notability somewhere. Which place? Because it's obviously wrong to say Google scholar. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 22:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Note that this article was nominated for deletion about five hours after it was created, but WP:BEFORE says "If the article was recently created, consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article". This organization does have some secondary coverage in adequately reliable sources - I just added some additional citations to the article, so along with The New Telegraph, the article now has citations to The Guardian Nigeria, Punch, and Vanguard News. They're not super substantive or independent pieces, but relatively typical for Nigerian news media. I also consider the HeapNews piece to contribute to notability, since the author, Bunmi Yekini, is a reputable journalist. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    For how many times will you keep trying to—perhaps—save an article that is not fit to WP:STANDALONE? Why find or advocate to use sources which doesn't meet WP:SIRS to support your wrong propaganda or whatever even in the face of what is clear here: non notability of this article. I wonder how much sources you will make up to change from weak to a strong keep. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 22:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Dreamyshade, I also want to know how you concluded that Bunmi Yekini is a reputable journalist? Again, I wonder why you know and still added those ...not super substantive or independent pieces, but relatively typical for Nigerian news media" and still expect a WP:STANDALONE article. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 22:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Comment. Added a partial source assessment table, as follows, to support my recommendation. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Updated table. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Ojo, Yetunde Ayobami (2019-12-17). "Groups urge government to respect citizens' rights". The Guardian Nigeria News. Retrieved 2026-06-15.
 ~ News article by a reporter, but mainly reports what ISHRAI and another organization said Yes Reliable according to WP:NAIJARS Yes Article is about a joint statement made by ISHRAI and another organization, not a passing mention ~ Maybe
Yes Report written and published by the Canadian government Yes "​​​​​​​Responses to Information Requests (RIRs) are research reports on country conditions. They are requested by IRB decision-makers." ~ Not significantly about ISHRAI itself, but significantly quotes ISHRAI as an expert source ~ Maybe
Adeyemi, Appolonia (2026-05-16). "ISHRAI Leads Push For Justice, Safer Reporting Systems For Marginalised Groups". New Telegraph. Retrieved 2026-06-15.
 ~ News article by a correspondent, but mainly reports what ISHRAI said Yes Reliable according to WP:NAIJARS Yes About an event organized by ISHRAI and another organization ~ Maybe
~ News article by a journalist (see also; additional source), but mainly reports what ISHRAI said ~ Digital news startup not listed at WP:NAIJARS Yes About an event organized by ISHRAI and another organization ~ Maybe
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Close
  • Weak keep. Would support merging if there's an article where that would make sense. Also, per WP:BEFORE, nominating a very new article for deletion instead of allowing time for growth seems premature; a clean-up tag and/or article talk page discussion first would have been better. Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 01:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Similar to another discussion, I agree with Weak Keep, and what you have stated here. There needs to be time to let this article grow and expand. As stated above, it had only been mere hours after the article was created that it was nominated for deletion. Also, this AfD is blatantly unfair to the labor of those who wrote the article to nominate it for deletion, rather than the OP beginning a discussion on article on the appropriate talk page. Yet another case of deletion being used to engage in cleanup, when editing and improvements could have solved the issues that the OP believes are a problem. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - nomination took place way too soon after being published, and the coverage included in the article is sufficient for SIGCOV in my opinion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Keep for same reason Urchincrawler (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - At least on this sourcing. The source analysis table is the wrong one. This organisation should be considered under WP:NORG and the newspaper articles are primary sources that do not meet WP:SIRS (which, in any case, applies to GNG as well). But the NORG assessment table asks editors to explicitly consider if sources are primary, and they are here. Consider: on the two alleged passing sources, what do these sources say about the organisation? Nothing. They are reports of the organisation's advocacy activity, but they provide no WP:ORGDEPTH coverage and do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. In particular, these sources fail WP:ORGCRIT because they are not independent of the subject, despite the source analysis table stating otherwise. The two articles are clearly written off the back of press releases, as is standard when organisations take part in such advocacy work. So as it stands, we have no independent reliable secondary sources from which to write an article and this is a clear WP:NORG fail. I think it needs scrutiny from more editors familiar with WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    Comment. Thanks for taking a closer look! I compared the recent New Telegraph article and Heap News article because I wondered if they were based on the same press release, but I'm guessing they're just based on the same event, since they vary in the details presented, order of information, and quotes. The earlier Guardian Nigeria article seems to be similarly based on an event. Looking at WP:ORGIND, these articles have independence of the author, which is what I was thinking about, but they don't really have "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Tricky since I haven't seen much of that style of reporting in the Guardian Nigeria, New Telegraph, or most of the similar newspapers listed at WP:NAIJARS. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: It just does not meet WP:NORG. Allowing more time should take place in Draft space, so I would probably say, draftify it and let it come through AfC review, although I support the merge as well. This seems like a classic case of WP:ILIKEIT.
For the interesting source assessment table above, the first source is "a joint statement made by ISHRAI and another organization", obvious failure of WP:ORGTRIV, classic example of routine news coverage. The second one has absolutely no depth mentioning the subject and fails WP:ORGDEPTH. For the third one, an event-driven report, "mainly reports what the organization said", which is an obvious failure of WP:CORPTRIV. The fourth one is same as the third. Nowhere near notability... — Raihanur (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm trying to read WP:CORPTRIV closely to understand this better, and I'm a bit confused - the list says "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: [...] presentations, speeches, lectures, etc. given by organization's personnel", which seems to indicate that the presentations/speeches/lectures themselves are trivial coverage, not necessarily defining press coverage of presentations/speeches/lectures as trivial?
Not trying to argue for notability at this point though, since the best sources I've found are all borderline at best. Draftification probably wouldn't help much - I'd be surprised if anyone could find substantial sources I haven't found yet, so the org would need to attract substantial international press coverage, which seems unlikely in the near term. Best alternative to deletion would be a redirect to LGBTQ rights in Nigeria as the closest related article, but there are no incoming links to this article from other articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Douglas Kendyson


Douglas Kendyson (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)

Nothing notable about this person if not being the founder of yet a non notable company—Selar. It fails WP:NBIO and WP:BUSINESSPERSON. The sources are just blogs and personal essays published in magazines that doesn't meet WP:RS. WP:BEFORE showed nothing salvageable for WP:ATD. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Drafify: There seems to be more reliable sources added in this discussion, and because this is a WP:BLP article, It should have some time to improving sources.
★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 04:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree. The article itself should be worked on more and improved before moved back into the mainspace. I'm not a big fan of the draft process, but in this case, as you, and Pikkupapupata, have stated, it would help this article. Hence, I say Draftify. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
@Historyday01, you are agreeing on what exactly? Draftifying what you cannot prove to meet notability? Or even be sure that there are sources out there to save it or improve it? SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
My comment is clear: I am saying that the page should be draftified. Your tone in your response is hostile and I do not appreciate it. Deletion is not, and never will be, a "solution" to article cleanup, as you seem to be doing with unnecessary nominations like this which are wasting everyone's time. Please respect fellow contributors on here. Thanks. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I agree, including the recent comments I saw from this WikiProject.
I'm still going wear my good faith hat, but please, Safari, your tone is too open to misinterpretation. It is causing unintentional hostility. I'd recommend for you to use tone indicators and use less-subjective language, whilst not leaning too far into aspersions and personal attacks. You should be finding alternatives to deletion and save articles, and never AfD articles that only needs more sources. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. /nm (Not mad.)
I won't be responding to this comment or this AfD anymore. I don't want to get hot-headed or cause meaningless debates. Great cheers. ★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 05:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Stop presuming, no reliable source was shown in this discussion. If you insist, logically show them. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
You tagged the company non notable and I defended it. Someone asked I provide them and I did, yet you ignored them. Obinna Tony (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
So, tagging the company (barely notable), yet I provided sources, begs the question if your nominations are actually good faith and you are doing any thorough review (maybe stick to topics you are familiar with). Obinna Tony (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Here's a few sources I found:
Just to say, you could, and should, have done this kind of research before this nomination. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Lets run a source review then. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 18:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you.
But he claims he is neutral while nominating it with others and having another Nigerian a few minutes supporting the delete. (I’m to believe it’s not targeted). Obinna Tony (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Obinna Tony (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Multiple sources have been shared demonstrating SIGCOV. At least one of the sources, BusinessDay (Nigeria), is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources as generally reliable. I don't know what level of consensus the Nigerian RS page has, but the nominator suggested in another AFD that this page should be consulted. Several of the other sources appear reasonable. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Keep for same reason as Myceteae Urchincrawler (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - plenty of sources provided in here and they seem to be independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. Jishara (talk) 17:53, 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! 06:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let us take a look at the sources in the articles first before this ones here.

Footnote 1: this is a blog, and of course fails WP:RS. It is a routine interview that has no in-depth analysis except fanciful things about the person being interviewed.

Ft 2: This is the article owner's website, hence it is a primary source, but still fails to verify or go in-depth how he is "a Nigerian writer, software engineer, and entrepreneur".

Ft 3: It is his company's website and fails to explain, as the article said, what is Selar about. This is purely an WP:original research.

Ft 4: Fails WP:RS. It is a puff written by the page owner in his medium website, an unreliable website. (See WP:MEDIUM).

Ft 5: this is an interview] (WP:INTERVIEW) and fails WP:RS. Again, the source/website is a blog or perhaps a one man editor platform) (See WP:BLOG).

Ft 6: Tech Cabal is reliable to info about technology. In this context, it is an interview. It fails WP:RS.

Ft 7: This is an interview which is not reliable since the person interviewed talks about himself and those things are unverifiable. Nigerian CEO Magazine is generally unreliable since it lacks byline.

Ft 8, 9, and 10 are all pufferies from unreliable sources: www.thecreativebrief.africa, CIO Africa, and Business Elites Africa (see WP:NGRS).

Let us see the sources listed in this discussion:

Ft. 1 is a list of new articles about Selar and not about the founder. Hence this fails into WP:INHERIT. It was listed by User:Obinna Tony.

This same user, in listing his WP:THREE, he listed 4 and here are the analysis. Ft. 1 i.e. Tech Labari is a pure blog and its lack of in-depth research on articles is relevant to being a one man managed platform. Again, it is not independent of Douglas since rather than the founder, it was all about the company (see WP:INDEPENDENT).

Ft 2: BusinessDay is a reliable source, however this particular article is obviously a paid stuff, writing about the history of Selar. It, too, doesn't make Selar notable since it is a simple paid puffery. User:Myceteae, I wonder what you will say here because from your !vote above, it seems you never read the content of that article; you probably presumed that because it is a reliable source work, it must have been through, independent and verifiable or that you are a person that cites a website without checking its content for the sake of the website being reliable. Or don't you know that a website can be reliable and still write rubbish once in a time it even frequently?

Ft 3: Techpoint Africa is a reliable source per WP:NGRS but the content of the article is never about Douglas but about the company called Selar which he founded. That doesn't automatically make him notable (See WP:INHERIT).

Ft 4: this is a Substack writer's work and it is highly promotional and unreliable since it often contains, like this one, personal essays.

Let us also see the five sources listed by User:Historyday01:

Ft 1: The Star is a reliable source, however this particular article is a commentary, which means an original research, perhaps an opinion of the author, in this case, by Martin Mwita.

Ft 2: A database collection of the conference's speaker's information. This is clearly an unverifiable primary source and fails WP:RS.

Ft 3: The Punch is notable per WP:NGRS, however this is an interview, a promotional puff, as well as a failed verification. How? The travel guide adviser Waka Waka Doctor is different from Douglas, the founder of Selar. It is obviously now clear that this user who cited this either didn't read it or perhaps understands not what a reliable and verifiable information is.

Ft 4: this piece from disrupt article is a pure blog post. Disrupt Africa is a one man run portal for startups. It lacks credibility and may have been copy and paste work because one person, logically, cannot handle reliable information of vast research without helpers like reporters. Again, the website itself is a blog platform.

Ft 5: Pulse NG is reliable, however they made it clear that this is a sponsored post using the tag #FeaturebySelar. Also, the paid stuff is showcased at the end of the piece, written as "You can go to selar.co and sign up for free and start selling your digital products and services. It takes less than 5 minutes to sign up on Selar." Is this not obvious?

Ft 6: Condia is an unreliable source. Again, should we consider the piece, then it fails WP:RS because it is not of Douglas but a passing mention of him.

I have exhaustively reviewed, like I did before this nomination, all sources and now the ones presented here. I see an illogic move here. The editors seem to lack some knowledge on WP:RS criteria. Maybe the article itself is explainable. They often think that a reliable source cannot publish nonsense or even brown envelope journalism. It is common here in Nigeria but that is anyway doesn't mean that when we see good pieces, we won't know. It is typical to any Nigerian editor who's actually editing to help bridge the gap we are having with African contents. In this case, I do not think, like any rational being will do, that saving an article that is not notable just for a particular reason is any worthwhile because it is of no use and wastes the community's time like this. I support WP:ATD but not for things I know that are evasively non notable. Cheers!SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 07:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Draftify or else just delete. Agreeing with the source assessment above. It is not impossible that more and better sources will be found, such that this could be reliably sourced, but it is not right now, and neither do we have evidence that this meets WP:ANYBIO. I'd suggest draftify as an ATD for 2 reasons. Firstly, because, in an under represented locale, where good sources are harder to find, it is quite possible this should be someone treated as notable, and good sources may emerge, and secondly, because the editor who wrote this is clearly in good faith, but not fully aware of the sourcing requirements on Wikipedia, and I would encourage them to keep at it, and seek out those better sources. Even if they eventually come to their own conclusion that this subject is not notable, they will gain invaluable experience in the search. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    That is surely correct. I fear that when draftified, who knows the author might move it to namespace again, and then we'll start another AFD. In your presentable terms, I support to draftify. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 11:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I will refrain from responding to SafariScribe's thinly veiled insult but these should be discounted by the closer.
Ft 5: this is an interview] (WP:INTERVIEW) and fails WP:RS. Again, the source/website is a blog or perhaps a one man editor platform) (See WP:BLOG). African Folder may have been founded by an individual but per the About Us page you linked, they are part of a larger multimedia conglomerate. Their editorial standards and policies appear in line with other generally reliable sources. This is not a personal blog nor are there major red flags that suggest they are not reliable.
Ft 1: The Star is a reliable source, however this particular article is a commentary, which means an original research, perhaps an opinion of the author, in this case, by Martin Mwita. Commentary or analysis can contribute to notability and may be a reliable source with attribution.
Some of the other sources about Kendyson specifically are weak. I would still lean keep as there is evidence of likely notability here. As alternatives, I would support draftification or development of a Selar (company) article where some content from this article could be merged. As SafariScribe notes, several reliable sources provide SIGCOV of the company. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Analysis

Source 1: Piggyvest is a blog, but a blog is not unreliable because it's a blog, according to Wikipedia. It's a Piggyvest blog, a reliable fintech that has a page redirected to the founder. PiggyVest

Source 2: Primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, but should be used sparingly when secondary sources are available. It was used to support his job.

Source 3: It was used to usher people who might read the article and want to understand what Selar is about.

Source 4: It's a medium piece only used to support his sexuality.

Source 5: It's an interview and a look at the politics and movie sections alone; there are five different bylines.

Source 6: This is a feature interview that incorporates both personal analysis and the interviewee's opinion, not a plain interview.

Source 7: This is, in fact, an interview, but their about page clearly indicates it's a reliable source with physical offices: https://nigerianceomagazine.com/contact-us/

Source 8: This is a Creative Brief substack published by Tima Agency, as stated on their substack: https://tima.agency/

Source 9: Unreliable source? CIOAfrica The Team: https://cioafrica.co/about-us/

Source 10: The article has a byline from Wale Ameen, who has a portfolio on Muckrack (https://muckrack.com/wale-ameen/portfolio) and journalist.net (https://journalist.net/wale.ameen), and has been published in various reputable outlets.

SOURCE DISCUSSIONS

SOURCE 1: Back to the sources I listed on that chat, because they accused Selar of not being notable, and when I said it's notable for being popular, someone said that being popular doesn't mean notable, so I shared these. So, I didn't share these to support Douglas Kendyson but rather Selar. Not sure why they are trying to flip it.

Techlabari might be a one-man-run website, as with most poorly funded Nigerian websites, but it doesn't necessarily post misinformation. There has to be proof to make a case for the argument.

Source 2: user:Myceteae, this could be a paid article (like a lot of articles on reputable sources), but "them" accusing something of being a paid article without evidence doesn't make it a paid article. What do you think?

Source 3: This source was shared because this user, SafariScribe, accused Selar of not being notable, and someone told me to prove it's notable, not to support Douglas. I don't know why they are trying to flip it now.

Source 4: Comminique is a reliable subtack website. The owner's portfolio: https://www.davidadeleke.com/writing . They have been published on Al Jazeera and were a former editor at the Rest of the World.

Obinna Tony (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the BusinessDay article is a paid contribution but it is somewhat promotional in tone. As for the Substack, sometimes self-published sources can be cited in articles when the author is a recognized subject matter expert. The use case is quite limited and these generally cannot contribute to reliability. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Salish Matter


Salish Matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The references are just passing mentions and routine coverage. The Variety and THR links are a prime example of routine casting announcements, and Tubefilter is just a single-event report. Lacks the independent WP:SIGCOV required for a BLP. ConeKota (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing like the coverage to meet relevant notability criteria. And I'd advise article contributors to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As an example, there are no circumstances where Wikipedia should be citing beacons.ai, a website for "creators... to grow their online presence and monetize their content". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jordan Matter. Per the sourcing issues already noted, I don't see WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO being met here. Coverage is limited and mostly connected to Jordan Matter. A standalone article isn't justified, but a redirect makes sense given the association. Waypoint47 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Jordan Matter per Waypoint Wikiman (Talk) 21:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep She is notable per WP:GNG because news outlets like Variety and Deadline have covered her film work and business. Staticspector (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    I find your vote to be blatantly wrong as WP:GNG states and I quote 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. Variety and Deadline are reliable sources, sure, but these are not independent of Salish or her career, as she is simply a passing mention in both sources. Again, I fear this fails WP:GNG. ConeKota (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per award and notability. --NYC Guru (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    I fear this vote shouldn't count, and I recommend reading WP:ITSNOTABLE, Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. ConeKota (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator might reconsider arguing with others enough to dominate discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

2014 British cabinet reshuffle


2014 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)

Seeing as 2026 British cabinet reshuffle is proposed for deletion currently at Articles for Deletion (AfD), I have decided to nominate other articles of that series so that debate can be put to rest in a very definitive manner. The significance of this topic is not obvious to someone who did not follow British politics closely in 2014 and is a routine event. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Notified: User:Dz5t 8O12, User:Simon373737, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, User:Moondragon21, User:AadamentAardvark, User:OGBC1992, User:RandomEditsForWhenIRemember and User:Ivanhardybirt. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - this has been up for years has proper sources and has a bunch of other stuff no reason to delete it Ivanhardybirt (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Thanks for flagging this issue. The 2014 case was definitely a reshuffle, so keep.
I think the best way to judge a reshuffle vs ministerial changes between reshuffles is to check the individual Ministry pages. In this case Cameron–Clegg coalition.
This shows there were 3 Cabinets in this period (2010-2012, 2012-2014, and 2014-2016) so the reshuffles were 2012 and 2014.
Other ministerial changes in between reshuffles (e.g. resignation of Ben Wallace) were not reshuffles, just filling vacancies.
A reshuffle will be announced by the Prime Minister’s office and involves ministers walking up Downing Street in front of the cameras (including those remaining in current posts). Also, media sources will call it a reshuffle.
The Cabinet reshuffle article is also useful. I spotted a couple of errors so corrected this. A new prime minister appointing their first cabinet is not considered a reshuffle.
The Starmer ministry article shows two cabinets (2024-2025 and 2025-present). Hence, 2026 ministerial changes were not a reshuffle.
Hope this helps. Simon373737 (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I should have said 2014-2015 Cabinet above. Changes after general election are not reshuffles either. Simon373737 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

2026 Italy–US diplomatic crisis


2026 Italy–US diplomatic crisis (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 Italy–United States relations because there is no reason that this needs to be a separate article. The target article is only about 2,500 words. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge, but only a brief sentence. This article was likely LLM generated and contains large swathes of unsourced content. Katzrockso (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, sort of. I don't see any solid evidence of LLM usage, and the incident has been covered in multiple news. It's also likely it will have a lasting impact in the history of US-Italy relations. Now, this is of course a biased assessment since we're in the midst of it; later we could well assess its relevance as secondary. But to merge/delete it now out of haste, only to then recreate it from scratch, seems to me a waste of time. Given that there are no serious grounds for deletion I'd wait and see, no prejudice for a renom later. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    I think that all the LLM generated content has been removed. Martin Mystère (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as it is too early per WP:NOTNEWS. Geschichte (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Keep: Unfortunately, this AI gets in everywhere, Google Translate is not reliable. Google Translate alters the translation in its own way. One part that was built with AI that was removed was the 'begged' issue.
    However, you removed parts that in my opinion were important and clarified the Italian position. Putting a merge makes no sense, the link is already there and this article is for more information. If we start thinning or removing some parts then the article no longer makes sense. Iran's ability to strike from Cyprus to Diego Garcia should have been left in because it was essential to the explanation. Furthermore, it does not seem that the crisis will end anytime soon. Rapidfirreee (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Nawaf al-Moussawi


Nawaf al-Moussawi (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 Nawwaf Moussawi because they appear to be the same person, just different translations of the name. SGwikipedian123 (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. SGwikipedian123 (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was speedy keep. WP:CSK #1 (non-admin closure) Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 04:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Vanessa Bishop

AfDs for this article:
Vanessa Bishop (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:NBLP. It appears that no significant or reliable secondary sources exist on this writer. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 03:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Withdrawn: I am a fucking moron who needs to check for previous deletion discussions. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 03:59, 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.

Coalition for Positive Sexuality


Coalition for Positive Sexuality (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)

An unsourced article. I searched and could find nothing that meets WIkipedia guidelines. Themeparks (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Coney I-Lander

AfDs for this article:
Coney I-Lander (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 source are listed on the article, failing GNG. OWaunTon (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The article previously had sources but all four were removed in this March 2025 edit by an IP claiming to be affiliated with the subject. मल्ल (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: long before the COI IP edit, this survived the first nomination from 2008 under the lower standards of the era (but also after a sourcing beef-up that was clearly challenged by the IP). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 16 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) 02:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

History of Superman


History of Superman (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 sources, poorly written, etc. Really this article is a case where it'd be more difficult to find a guideline this actually follows. Also topic matter overlaps entirely with Publication history of Superman ModlordD (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Publication history of Superman per nom. No sources and entirely redundant to the other article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Publication history of Superman: this had been a stable redirect to that title for 13 years (before then, that article was actually at this title) before being newly overwritten with this unsourced iteration, which would certainly explain the obvious topic overlap. This probably could have simply been reverted without an AfD, but we're here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Qutb Shah


Qutb Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was BLARed in 2025 by User:Sutyarashi with the rationale "Repeated vandalism and little to nothing is known about him from RS sources. Converting into redirect." But he seems to be potentially notable to me, and there are sources in the article. Bringing to AfD for a full discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete I ran searches in both English and Urdu (Urdu searches often bring results in Persian/Arabic as well), and unfortunately, there's nothing to substantiate notability for this person. Just because notable people descend through this person, doesn't establish individual notability. Thus fails WP:GNG, and there's not subjective notability either. signed, Aafi (guesthouse) 07:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    The only thing we have is that Khokhars attribute their origin to Qutb Shah. See this and this. Martial races of undivided India also gives some account of this person, but overall I think there's scarcity of information in general. I still lean to delete but would be happy to change my opinion if resources follow up. signed, Aafi (guesthouse) 08:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Nordine Raymond


Nordine Raymond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. He was a candidate in a recent election, however, that does not equate to notability at this time. Unable to find additional sources other than passing mentions related to the election. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: A regional election candidate doesn't pass notability. Some mentions in the press of harassment issues , that's not really notable either. I don't see enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of France-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep : a candidate for European election, legislative elections (almost elected MP), regional election and municipal election in the sixth most populated city in France (almost elected city councillor). Extensive regional press coverage and national press coverage (Libération, L'Humanité, France Info...). I thought it was enough to prove notability even though I'm okay with deletion. Sincerely. --Uchroniste 40 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per "almost elected city councillor". Come back if elected. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Nginx (disambiguation)


Nginx (disambiguation) (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 does not actually disambiguate more than one page. All of the information on this dab page is available at nginx. ~ A412 talk! 01:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Disambiguations. ~ A412 talk! 01:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under G14, as a disambiguation page that list only one extant Wikipedia page. ScalarFactor (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Propose a merge to Minecraft as an WP:ATD for a non-notable topic. There is a lack of significant coverage about the site itself. As a WP:MERGEREASON, the overlap is fairly direct: the sourcing mentions in passing that Omniarchive is the repository of various builds of Minecraft that have been found, and it seems simple to briefly mention this in the main article without the need for a separate article (given version histories tend to fall afoul of typical subject matter in an article). VRXCES (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Minecraft. There both appears to be very little to say about this site ("they preserve old versions of Minecraft") and very little the sources have to say about it. Not independently notable from the game and its versions. ~ A412 talk! 00:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Omniarchive


Omniarchive (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)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI