Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 March 17

Mainframe audit

Mainframe audit (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 is written as advice and instructions to a learner, and does not seem WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. It may be of interest to those who contribute to mainframe computer. BlockArranger (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Comment Do you feel that the content is a valid topic and while the references arent cited in line might be correct? If its just written poorly, thats not necessarily a reason to delete. Unfortunately, a lot of these sources dont look readily accesible. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Mainframe auditing might possibly be a topic considered notable, as there is a good chance that enough material could be found to support notability. However, this topic is of very limited importance within Wikipedia, and a lot of the actual article is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I have posted a notice at Talk:Mainframe computer regarding this; I would guess that the best option would be to merge what little seems to possibly be of value. BlockArranger (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Mainframe computer with possibilities. PokémonPerson 16:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Mainframe computer Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:32, 23 March 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.

Lisa Marcaurelle

Lisa Marcaurelle (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)

Highly resume-like and appears to fail WP:NBIO. Amigao (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Chemistry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Her h-index is 29, which is too low for a relatively high-citation field, so fails WP:NPROF. Also lacks coverage for GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Research performance unimpressive, though it may improve in, say, five years. Athel cb (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete not a high enough h-index for notability. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:32, 24 March 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.

Guitar Dominance!

Guitar Dominance! (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 is notable about this entry. Artist is not notable. Album is not notable. Fails all music notability guidelines. Cannot find any RS. Maineartists (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night of the Living Shred for an article on another album by the same musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect to Joe Stump - Didn't find anything else anything besides the AllMusic review. The artist actually might be notable (many borderline notable solo albums) and normally non-notable albums should be redirected to artist article but in this case it should be deleted unless someone is willing to create the article. --Mika1h (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much of anything out there, and [this] doesn't cut it. Also no good redirect target, as artist not notable. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Joe Stump as WP:ATD. Well done, Mika1h!! WidgetKid ^Converse 04:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Per WP:A9 we can assume that if the musician has no article, then the notability of that person's albums should be viewed suspiciously unless there are significant pro reviews and other coverage. This album is only visible in the usual streaming services and minor websites where users can post their own reviews. The AllMusic review mentioned in the article helps and it is from a pro reviewer with editorial oversight, but it's just one possible source and more are necessary for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Now that an article on Stump has been created (see below), I can go with a standard redirect of both the album articles to there. I think Stump's individual notability (outside of Alcatrazz) needs to be examined too, but that can be a different discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - Musician article now exists at Joe Stump. --Mika1h (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Not worth the creation of an article. Its musician article exists is no excuse to create a page for something that lack sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Joe Stump Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 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.

November 2025 United States military video controversy

November 2025 United States military video controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is WP:NOTNEWS, fine to include on the articles of those members of Congress and probably Hegseth too, but not notable for its own article. It's not a "controversy" to tell service members not to follow illegal orders. And Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The content can be included in their biographies, there is no need for a separate page. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: This has been a controversy (the news decides that; not Wikipedia editors' opinions on the merits of the video). This multi-month saga has included multiple lawsuits and continued, sustained coverage in reliable sources. The event, on its own, is notable. Bravelake (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment @Bravelake: - Is there a coverage from this year? I do not see it cited, to support your claim of "sustained coverage". --Altenmann >talk 19:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The article on Elissa Slotkin does cite one source from this year.^[1]

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The fallout of the video is ongoing

The BBC

The Hill

The Hill (Democrats ongoing demand for review of prosecutors who brought a suit against the “seditious six”)

Beyond the continued discussion and the evolution of facts, the saga was widely covered in reliable sources and represents a non-routine, non-gossip event in American governance. Bravelake (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but def update, as real world efforts were undertaken and then kind of fell apart or were abandoned. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep but only because the mainstream media has kept this non-controversy alive. Bearian (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  Politicians made some claims, and media reported on them. But this is still ultimately primary coverage, which is not enough to pass NEVENT. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  But thats kindof conceding that this isnt notable and its just a passing media todo. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

More information This transclusion of an incomplete table has been collapsed. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC), Source ...

This transclusion of an incomplete table has been collapsed. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

For a convenient overview, here's a source assessment table: Source assessment table Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? Samuels, Brett; Beitsch, Rebecca (November 20, 2025). "Trump deems Dems 'traitors' over calls for military to resist unlawful orders". The Hill. Retrieved November 20, 2025. WP:THEHILL ? Unknown Fuller, Haley (November 21, 2025). "When Lawmakers Lecture the Military: Why the "Unlawful Orders" Video Invites Confusion". Military.com. See this discussion ? Unknown Hartmann, Margaret. "Trump Shares Call to 'Hang' Democratic Lawmakers". New York. Retrieved November 20, 2025. WP:INTELLIGENCER ? Unknown Mayes-Osterman, Cybele. "Trump accuses six Democratic lawmakers of 'seditious behavior, punishable by death'". USA Today. WP:USATODAY ? Unknown "Trump calls for Democratic lawmakers to face trial for 'seditious behavior'". Politico. November 20, 2025. WP:POLITICO ? Unknown Staff, WSYX (November 20, 2025). "'HANG THEM': Trump reacts to Democratic lawmakers' video appeal to military". WSYX. WP:RSP § ABC News (US) ? Unknown Forrester, Megan; Jack, Moore (November 25, 2025). "Hegseth orders Navy to review Sen. Kelly for 'potentially unlawful conduct'". ABC News. WP:RSP § ABC News (US) ? Unknown Cole, David (November 26, 2025). "Mark Kelly Is Being Investigated for Telling the Truth". The New York Times. WP:RSEDITORIAL ✘ No Jaffe, Greg (November 18, 2025). "Democratic Lawmakers Tell Military to Refuse Illegal Orders". The New York Times. WP:NYT ✔ Yes Britzky, Haley (December 16, 2025). "Pentagon launches new phase of probe into Sen. Mark Kelly over 'illegal orders' video | CNN Politics". lite.cnn.com. WP:CNN ? Unknown Walsh, Joe; Sprouse, Ryan (15 December 2025). "Pentagon "escalating" its review of Sen. Mark Kelly over video urging defiance of illegal orders - CBS News". CBS News. WP:CBS ? Unknown Timotija, Filip (15 December 2025). "Pentagon escalates review into Sen. Kelly over 'illegal orders' video". thehill.com. WP:THEHILL ? Unknown "Sen. Elissa Slotkin receives bomb threat after urging military to 'refuse illegal orders'". NBC News. November 22, 2025. WP:NBC ? Unknown Fields, Ashleigh (January 14, 2026). "Slotkin says she's under federal investigation over illegal orders video". WP:THEHILL ? Unknown https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20z7yplp7po WP:RSPBBC ? Unknown https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5755077-kelly-censure-block-lawsuit/ WP:RSEDITORIAL ✘ No https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5746051-lawmakers-video-illegal-orders/ WP:RSPBBC Too little analysis to count as secondary ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC) The NYT source is fine, The Hill is not, as it consists mainly of quotes from various officials providing little secondary analysis. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC) @Kelob2678: Are you commenting on one NYT article and one Hill article in particular (if so, please specify which articles you're talking about), or are you commenting on the general nature of all articles of each newspaper? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC) I somehow thought that there are two GNG-contributing articles in the table, now I see there are three. There is an op-ed that I missed, but it is not reliable per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Another NYT source is good and contributes to notability, and the Hill source contains too little analysis to count as a secondary source. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Close

• Delete: It is a controversy but the article desparately needs an update or else it probably should be deleted. Unilandofma^Talk 19:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC) Keep. Since the article has improved, I believe it's worth keeping. Unilandofma^Talk 17:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that all NOTNEWS tells us is that not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether this or any particular event is suitable or not depends on its impact, as reflected in secondary sources. "Per NOTNEWS" tells us very little on the notability of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep or merge somewhere. Being in poor shape doesn't require deletion, too soon to tell if it will meet WP:NEVENT Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Kindof a piddling story. Im not even sure the bio mentions are justified, but Ill leave that to local editors. I cant see how this will be worth any thought in 10 years. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete : Stuff was said, Trump didn't like it and the world carried on. This hasn't led to anyone losing their job in the military or in the media. I don't see lasting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect to Rhetoric of Donald Trump § Second presidency. I can't come up with a strong, original, policy-based argument for keeping this article, but if it has to go, it should just be blanked and redirected so its revision history isn't lost. I think a few parallels can be drawn with Barack Obama tan suit controversy, which also seems to be a controversial article for similar reasons. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Keep per WP:HEY, as the page has just undergone substantial expansion. @Kelob2678, Unilandofma, Metallurgist, and Oaktree b: Do you change your mind? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  @MrPersonHumanGuy: I've changed to Keep. Unilandofma^Talk 18:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  I still think its really uneventful, but I appear to be in the minority. At best maybe a weak keep. I suppose we could revisit in a year or so, but I just dont see this passing 10YT. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• weak keep One lawsuit has been filed, I suppose that shows continued notability. Nothing spectacular has happened, but it's enough to show it's still notable. Have updated my !vote above Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 19 March 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.

Juan Du

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

David McKenna (actor)

David McKenna (actor) (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)

It seems way too soon to have an article on this actor, who only has one role so far, no awards won for it, and any media coverage is focused on the show he was in (Lord of the Flies) or his upcoming role in Narnia: The Magician's Nephew. While he will likely get more coverage and meet guidelines for WP:NACTOR once Narnia is released, it will not hurt to wait until that actually happens to restore/recreate the article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify I think what is relevant here is whether the upcoming Narnia movie is notable. Looking at that page, I would say it fails WP:NFF, as the production section is mainly based on various announcements. I am not opposed to a redirect to Lord of the Flies (TV series). Kelob2678 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep: This is a bit of an WP:IAR !vote, because I agree with TOOSOON, but considering Narnia is set for release later this year, I don't think there's much harm in keeping an article up that just falls short of WP:NACTOR, especially as he's already had one major role, and we know he's already wrapped up filming for a second. nil ^nz 01:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. May be he will be eligible after release of Narnia: The Magician's Nephew, if review covers him. But release is far away for now. So, no Redirect. Draftify it. --SatnaamIN (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment without a vote, coming from the German WP: We haven't had an official deletion discussion but were very near it. He is apparently considered notable for his previous role (the future role being sort of crystal ball at this point, or worse, advertising), but the problem I see with both articles is that there isn't really much of a biography, the only sourced content more or less being his kidney issues. --~2026-17295-82 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep:His Lord of the Flies role is extremely significant (lead role, now Emmy-predicted for 2026 - the series came out this year so you can't have awards won yet but they are predicted) and his next role is as lead of a multi Academy-award winning director's film, huge studio, and predicted to be itself Academy Award nominated. Its set for release in November (according to The Hollywood Reporter). He is absoloutely notable for those two roles and from what I can see he has signficant coverage. Also, the smaller-roled actors in Lord of the Flies (e.g. Lox Pratt who does not have a film role upcoming as McKenna does) has a standalone page so certainly McKenna's should be kept. ~2026-17041-93 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

per WP:ENT and WP:NACTOR, reviews for LOTF role and scale/calibre of directors McKenna has led projects for at young age - first 2 projects are two lead roles for an Emmy-winning and Academy-award nominated director and each predicted to sweep Emmy and Oscar seasons respectively in coming months qualify for "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." don't find comparison with Little Nemo, Danny Webb, or Gary Kietly to be strong. + McKenna's projects themselves are unique within themselves: LOTF is first TV adaptation of this novel and Narnia is first Netflix project to get exclusive IMAX release - this is of huge notoriety to entertainment community. ~2026-17041-93 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I've consolidated a duplicate keep !vote. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 02:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ENT and WP:OUTCOMES. "The person has had significant roles in multiple" shows is what we require - not just one, unless an actor "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." We have frequently deleted the articles about child actors. Mike McGovern, the Star of Little Nemo? Deleted without even a debate. Danny Webb? Deleted. Gary Kielty? Deleted. Many more examples exist, although a few similar articles were deleted as too soon, but re-created later. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I mean sure there is an argument for WP:TOOSOON but I believe this falls under WP:IAR as what is the point in deleting an articles that will be remade in 3-4 months. Already had a major role in a hit TV show and is set to play the lead in an upcoming movie from a popular franchise. Surely the fact that he's gained 20,000 pageviews as an unreviewed Wikipedia page that doesn't show up on Google shows that he has enough notability/interest. The point of Wikipedia is to share information about notable subject. Clearly there is enough interest in this subject if 20k people are searching him on Wikipedia alone. Rickyc123 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify but mostly just because it's WP:TOOSOON this kid seems like he is going to be notable very soon so I don't think it makes sense to delete. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I have made substantial cuts to the article owing to promotional language, lack of focus on the subject, and the like. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lord of the Flies (TV series) as the vehicle for the subject's only notable role so far. Tag redirect as {{R with possibilities}} on the basis that the subject may well meet WP:NACTOR once Narnia: The Magician's Nephew is released. There doesn't seem to be sufficient significant independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG yet. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:41, 25 March 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.

International Centre for Human Rights

International Centre for Human Rights (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)

Based on this talk page discussion it appears there is not a single, independent, reliable source that gives SIGCOV to ICHR. Instead, the sources merely cite ICHR's statements on news that relate to third parties, not ICHR itself. I realize there was an AfD on this just last month, but please see this discussion. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as this was only just recently discussed, as the nom knows and acknowledges. If anything, let I'd want to see more input on the talk page over some time before returning with a 3rd nomination soon thereafter when this is speedily kept. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  This user also !voted in the previous AfD and so I asked this very user 2 weeks ago to find sources on this topic and they have thus far not found any sources nor participated on the talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep Boud made a fairly robust support here. Despite that discussion later on, I dont see it as deletion worthy. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist are there any sources in that !vote that meet WP:GNG? I believe I looked at those sources and found that every single one failed GNG(table here). If I missed something, please let me know.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:LASTTIME. What just changed within a month of previous AfD? Previous AfD was KEEP on 20 February 2026 without any Delete vote. --SatnaamIN (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  @SaTnamZIN please see this conversation in terms of re-nominating it only after a month.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Vice regent understood. But that's TP conversation. You should have gone through WP:DRV. As you did not go to WP:DRV, WP:LASTTIME still stands. Also at previous AfD user:Boud provided sources. SatnaamIN (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: Per above. Zuck28 (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Vice Regent's linked analysis that the current cited sources are insufficient to establish WP:SIGCOV & am myself having issues finding notable coverage outside those (To be fair, this may in part be do to their somewhat generic name). I will also request for those in favor of keeping this article to more directly engage with VR's proposal, either by addressing their linked analyses or by supplying sources showing more significant coverage themselves. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  The disagreement here is about WP:COMMONSENSE: Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. ... Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. The perspectives of people interested in this article differ about the best way in which Wikipedia can inform our readers. The Wikipedia WP:NGO guideline can be updated later to better describe the outcomes of discussions like these, motivated by improving Wikipedia to best inform our readers, if needed. WP:SIGCOV makes it easier to establish human-rights NGO notability, but may not be strictly needed in all cases. Boud (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  SIGCOV is absolutely needed in all cases. Even in the case of WP:NGO, standard#2 says "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above as well as past discussion.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The relevant guideline (not policy) is WP:NGO. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Human rights NGOs are not corporations nor local sports clubs; both sourcing and notability are qualitatively different for many reasons. WP:SIGCOV is a parameter seen as likely to be needed to achieve consensus for editors discussing articles on organisations; but it does not prevent editors from reaching consensus to keep an article if the editorial judgment is that the subject is notable based on the sources. Moreover, WP:NGO includes both Nationally well-known local organizations and Factors that have attracted widespread attention for judging notability; both factors seem reasonably satisfied by the sources.
  The sources show that this is a Canadian–Iranian NGO, i.e. Canada-based dealing with human rights violations in Iran, i.e. international in scope, which is treated as a notable organisation by: international media (international coverage of ICHR's Human Rights Prize by Iran International); the Canadian federal political system (Zarezadeh testified at the Canadian Senate in his role as head of ICHR, so the Canadian Senate sees ICHR as notable; national coverage by a federal-level Canadian member of parliament); and is seen as a notable source of medical information in a prestigious international medical research journal, the The BMJ (in reference to ICHR's 43k count for the 2026 Iran massacres protester death toll; and indirectly by the Canadian media via its current director Ardeshir Zarezadeh who gets to write about Iran human rights in Canadian national news media, referring in each case to his role as ICHR director. (The WP-notable person Ahmad Batebi is apparently the current spokesperson and recently testified at the UN Security Council without direct reference to IHRC; his personal notability is only relevant in the sense that IHRC has a notable spokesperson, who is notable on the same topic as IHRC's topic.)
  Overall, there is coverage that is national, international, and medical, and from a variety of sources that are sufficiently independent from one another, showing that the organisation is nationally well-known and has attracted [a fair amount of] attention (not necessarily "widespread"; The BMJ is international and well-respected, but the particular article's use of the ICHR estimate is not top headline news). Keeping in mind that WP:NGO is a guideline, not a bureaucratic rule to be followed, it makes sense to accept ICHR as sufficiently notable to keep the article. This hasn't changed since the previous AFD. Boud (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  As he's the director, articles written by Ardeshir Zarezadeh obviously don't constitute independent coverage & can't be used to show notability. Coverage primarily about Ardeshir Zarezadeh ≠ significant coverage of ICHR. The organization doesn't automatically inherit his notability, so at most you've presented an argument for Ardeshir Zarezadeh to have an article, not ICHR.

  Of the sources you've presented, the only ones that explicitly support ICHR's notability is the Iran International article about a humanitarian award they gave & being cited in an opinion piece from the BMJ. This is not enough independent coverage to constitute a distinct article for the organization & I find your response to WP:SIGCOV issues so far having been to suggest changing the relevant guidelines unconvincing.

  It's fine if we can't find enough independent coverage of ICHR, it doesn't mean they're unreliable & it doesn't mean they can't be covered in other relevant articles, it just means we don't have enough to justify an entire separate article. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Lova Falk (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments made by Metallurgist Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - this is really interesting - Metallurgist Boud gives compelling arguments but obviously draws conclusions based on his own opinion: "(i)t does not prevent editors from reaching consensus to keep an article if the editorial judgment is that the subject is notable based on the sources, but it's not; and: "(M)oreover, WP:NGO includes both Nationally well-known local organizations and Factors that have attracted widespread attention for judging notability; both factors seem reasonably satisfied by the sources", but they don't.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Leaning toward procedural keep based on lack of WP:BEFORE search and recency of first AfD nomination just a month ago. NB: Cursory Wikipedia Library search turns up another similarly named organization based in Canada called the "International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development". Yes, there are multiple reasons finding the right sources is a slog but that in itself is not a reason for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:57, 25 March 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.

Manuela De Iuliis

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Italy. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NATHLETE Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 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.

Cerge for Truth

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing to support notability found in a search DonaldD23 talk to me 20:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• No contest, redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network or Cerge Remonde. Program aired from 2003 to 2007, and while the internet existed in the Philippines by then, any WP:RS published by then are WP:DEADLINKs, and newspapers are mostly not archived on the internet. However, I've found some from Google newspaper archive and may be salvageable. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network, and as reasonable. It's a great pun that works well in English or Tagalog, but makes no sense in Spanish. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Filipinos haven't spoken Spanish since never. What are you on about? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:04, 23 March 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.

Burn (energy drink)

Burn (energy drink) (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 PROD'd this a little while ago because it didn't have significant coverage. There doesn't seem to be anything about this, at least in English. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Monster Beverage#Products. I found a couple sources, but about enough to say "it definitely exists and secondary sources have talked about it", but I don't believe it's independently notable from the parent companies, because the sources largely discuss marketing strategy of the parent companies. WSJ, Australian Financial Review, Marketing Week. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I support merging as a first option, I listed this here for a quicker and larger consensus Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Monster Beverage#Products - agree with A412. Asteramellus (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Monster Beverage#Products Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 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.

Ali Shahid Mohamed

Ali Shahid Mohamed (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've found little to no information about him besides him being the Surgeon General of the MNDF and that he is the current President of the Maldives Medical and Dental Council. The "Academic qualifications" section is sourced from his Linkedin which is WP:UGC. I see no reason to keep this article. Unilandofma^Talk 19:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maldives. Unilandofma^Talk 19:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and also ref 2 not mentioning him PeriodicEditor (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Position held in the military could be notable, but we really only have a CV here. There are three hits in Gnews; this is typical , a name in a list or an article about other things. I don't see enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; a few primary sources are not enough for a BLP. This is essentially original research. Ping me if you add secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough significant coverage for a page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 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.

Moira Forbes

Moira Forbes (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:NBIO. The sources are a mish-mash of WP:ABOUTSELF bios and self-congratulatory appointment press releases. There is not WP:SIGCOV about Forbes that is not connected to her family or that is independent that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Longhornsg (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This article does not meet WP:GNG, in addition to the aforementioned WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. This reads like someone was paid to write this article (though I am not necessarily saying anyone was). Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Forbes family (publishers), where the subject is mentioned; never thought I'd see the day where I'd have to cite WP:FORBES for an actual Forbes as to why GNG/N isn't met, but your family's magazine that you run is not a neutral source (used several times) in any sense here. Nathannah • 📮 20:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per Nathannah. Forbes used to be a reliable source and a respected voice for the Right of Center, but now it's just kitty litter box liner. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Forbes family (publishers) Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 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.

Fatemeh Pasandideh

Fatemeh Pasandideh (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)

She lacks WP:SIGCOV and in-depth coverage, the present sources are just match reports and WP:ROUTINE. Svartner (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Iran. Svartner (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Since this week in the main news worldwide. See for instance here. Many people will start reading about her. The article has been expanded significantly since nomination. ~2026-15173-44 (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per recent events as ~2026-15173-44 pointed out. There are more Persian-language sources, too, e.g. فاطمه پسندیده، شماره ۱۰ تیم ملی زنان ایران، به استرالیا پناهنده شد [Fatemeh Pasandide, No. 10 of Iran's women's national team, defected to Australia]. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - players in national teams and top clubs are inherently notable anyway, and for reasons stated above. More will be published, and public interest is high. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Defection of Iran women's national football team - as possible search term. Not enough coverage, and none of the arguments above are grounded in policy/reality. GiantSnowman 19:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – She is just as notable as the other four women who defected. Assadzadeh (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  keep Gryllida 21:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep As outlined by other users above. I expect many sources that can be used in the future as her new life will undoubtedly be of interest to Australian media. Superegz (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. International-level sportsperson. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above and notability.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Keeps are making depreciated arguments. NFOOTBALL was scrapped meaning footballers have to pass GNG regardless of what level they play at. Public interest is irrelevant. Assuming there will be further sources is crystal balling. Dougal18 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  "...Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find." Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would expect Australian media (in English) to have coverage about this person, if any. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone just close this process now and remove the article tag? Views have been 1-2,000, and there is an overwhelming vote to keep. I would also point out that editors will be able to add much more once we can access Iranian sources again. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the votes provided any sources with WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There are many sources relating to recent events, but Iranian sources are just not available at the moment. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Svartner, you're wrong; I did. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The news you posted only mentions that she requested asylum in Australia, without any in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per basic notability - public interest and ongoing media coverage matter for GNG. Bearian (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Australian Media - public interest for GNG. Makejets (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Defection of Iran women's national football team, all coverage in the article is related to her defection, and we shouldn't have an article on people who are notable only for one event, unless coverage is really substantial (Gavrilo Princip being a canonical example), which is not the case here. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment She's just joined Brisbane Roar, and will no doubt continue to get coverage in Australian media. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite all the keep !votes, it still has a sourcing issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect. As a couple others have said, I think it would be the right move to redirect this to the Defection of Iran women's national football team page. If she receives notable invidual coverage in the future, then this page can be made again, but I have yet to see it. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect as suggested seems fine. Not quite notable yet, if ever. TOOSOON to see what will happen. If coverage over the next few months or years happens, this can easily be expanded. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Who knows, in a perfect world, the situation in Iran improves to such a point that they return home to have a long career... Problem is, we just don't know at this point. They could get injured while playing and fade away in Australia. One is more notable then the other and we can't predict what will happen. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNGEaglesFan37 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG, the subject represented a national team supports notability. Tatupiplu'^talk 14:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Improve, don't remove.Pluribussin' (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep clearly meets notability standards. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested. Accessible sources don't quite amount to GNG (I would invite any of the keep !votes to demonstrate otherwise instead of just asserting it), and the suggested redirect target is sensible. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:19, 23 March 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.

Gustavo Mariani

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

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO and no indication of any notability. Sources all from company website, a listing on Reuters and a government document. Orange sticker (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Argentina. Orange sticker (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn, and notability is not inherited. The only sources about him is the press release that he likely wrote. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROMO Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 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.

Government College of Engineering, Erode

Government College of Engineering, Erode (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:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:10, 23 March 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.

Gavrilo Martsenkovich

Gavrilo Martsenkovich (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; tagged for lack of SIGCOV since 2009. I can't access the links on Ukrainian Wikipedia, which is likewise a stub dump. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Russia, and Ukraine. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep According to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, he is included in the Ukrainian Musical Encyclopedia and the Ukrainian Little Encyclopedia [uk]. That page also lists additional sources, so GNG is satisfied. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Where exactly, specifically page? What are the sources about? Can you even read them? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as the Ukranian wikipedia article here lists a number of reliable sources books with page numbers that indicate several pages of coverage exercising WP:AGF, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per [User:Kelob2678|Kelob2678]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:14, 23 March 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.

Southeastern Summer Theatre Institute

Southeastern Summer Theatre Institute (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)

Unnotable club. Mentions are not significant and the page's citations do not add to notability. Possibly mergeable into Hilton Head High School's article, but they seem relatively separate from each other besides sharing a location. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and Schools. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete also the only references in the article are bare URLs, one of them goes to Google+ (which probably most people know that it was shutdown a while ago). Junk Junker (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: There's some reviews of their productions in The Island Packet but I don't see real evidence nor even an assertion of of notability in the article —BrechtBro (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete no real signs of notability. Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:15, 23 March 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.

Adhiyamaan College of Engineering

Adhiyamaan College of Engineering (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:NSOURCE and NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of educational institutions in Krishnagiri district Or any other suitable target. Doesn't have standalone notability. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of educational institutions in Krishnagiri district as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of educational institutions in Krishnagiri district. RangersRus (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of educational institutions in Krishnagiri district Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:40, 23 March 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.

Blacks, Illinois

Blacks, Illinois (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)

Moving on to Illinois, here we have a station stop on a rail line that died relatively early but which still shows as a faint trace on GMaps. Mr. Black died here, and there is/was a farm just down the road, But I don't see any evidence here on any map that there was anything beyond maybe a station and passing siding, and there's no sign of anything at all on aerials. So not a notable settlement, or even a settlement at all. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per failure of WP:NGEO. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, never had a post office per Jim Forte Postal History. Newspapers.com is difficult to sort through due to "Blacks" appearing in other contexts, but given the WP:BEFORE done by the nominator, it doesn't seem like this one meets notability. Jordano⁵³ 19:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to there not being a community visible on Google Maps's imagery, the creator's userpage and the date of creation makes me think that this might be a symptom of WP:GNIS and WP:MASSCREATION. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes to the first, no to the second. At the time, I assumed that almost anything in GNIS was at some point a real place, and I started a lot of stubs based entirely on the GNIS. As we all know now, that was a very bad assumption. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - agree with nom. Asteramellus (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as the creator. Another one of those articles I created under the mistaken impression that GNIS was more reliable than it is. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NPLACE Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 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.

Hayford Akrofi

Hayford Akrofi (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 should be deleted. The references are wholly unreliable and there are no more articles to be found. Very few of the statements in the original article are verifiable, e.g. there is no record that he was accepted by the Royal Institute of British Architects. There is no record of him building any buildings, either in the UK or Ghana--he renovated houses. Indeed, there is nothing to prove that he was an architect at all. As a "political activist", there is no record of accomplishments in his endeavours. This article was written by one of his friends and should be removed. LJA123 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Completing nomination on behalf of tagging editor--above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. @LJA123: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 00:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Most coverage in the article is related to the grieving of his comrades about his death. In terms of actual impact, he is described as an influential party member of the CPP, but the party doesn't have any seats in the Ghanaian parliament. Fails GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 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.

Francis Xavier Engineering College

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Palayamkottai#Colleges as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Palayamkottai#Colleges Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Sri Ragavendra Polytechnic College

Sri Ragavendra Polytechnic College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Too non-notable to even have a redirect. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 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.

RVS College of Engineering & Technology

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Found three sources - . I won't say that they are the best sources cuz all are "News Desk" and aren't bylined. But in light of the recent plethora of non-notable institutions at AFD, even this coverage looks good to me to keep the page. If others don't agree, I don't mind a complete deletion. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not convinced by the 3 sources identified above, they seem routine. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 24 March 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.

RMD Engineering College

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

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

Failure of NSCHOOL, V, and GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 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.

Rane Polytechnic College

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

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – Fails in GNG as well as NSCHOOL. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:00, 23 March 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.

Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 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.

Association of Film Commissioners International

Association of Film Commissioners International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP Bryce M (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep - the organisation's Cineposium has been reported on for over 40 years and currently no separate article. Sudiani (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with keep. There is plenty of reliable sourcing related to the "Cineposium" and other details, including mainstream media reporting that is notable. This makes the page WP:DUE. Just a couple of examples here and here Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bryce M (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep The article is largely WP:PROMO but search results indicate that it could be sourced appropriately. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 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.

Cside

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

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only 2 of the given sources are independent, of which the company itself only gets passing mentions. Couldn't find any other sources either. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and California. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep - NCORP, plenty of coverage. I'm surprised to read that one guideline is mentioned, the feedback is noted and more context is shared. Then another guideline is brought up, and another and another. None of the feedback given so fare is beyond WP:IMPROVE - starting and AfD for this article (in its current state) is an overreaction. ~2026-17815-91 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)— ~2026-17815-91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep.** The nomination fails WP:BEFORE. The nominator has not identified which sources were reviewed, which 2 are considered independent, or demonstrated that cybersecurity trade press (Dark Reading, SC Magazine, SecurityWeek, Help Net Security, The Register) was searched prior to nomination. "Couldn't find any other sources" is not evidence of non-existence, it reflects incomplete research at best. WP:NCORP requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which exists in the client-side security and PCI DSS v4.0.1 compliance space. The company's connection to the British Airways/Magecart breach has generated independently notable third-party coverage. If the article lacks citations, the correct remedy is improvement, not deletion. Nominating without exhausting WP:BEFORE does not meet the bar for AfD. Please clarify which of the sources are considered independent and which aren't so I can review the accuracy. Sharing 'only 2 of the given sources are independent' is not specific enough. Swagmansonsec (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly I'm not sure what connections the company has to the British Airways/Magecart breach you're talking about, it was not mentioned in the article anywhere nor could I find anything other than posts by the CEO here and here. This is still not WP:SIGCOV.

For the record the source analysis table generator wasn't working for me for whatever reason:

References:

• https://www.cio.com/video/3952855/c-side-protects-websites-from-third-party-script-attacks-enhances-browser-security.html - Not reliable or independent. It specifically states the source is a marketing outlet.
• https://cside.com/about - Company's own page.
• https://www.securityweek.com/c-side-emerges-from-stealth-mode-with-1-7-million-investment/ - Not independent, as stated here it is a marketing agency: https://advertise.securityweek.com/info, and has no ethics policy.
• https://www.securityweek.com/c-side-raises-6-million-to-secure-the-browser-supply-chain/ - Same as above
• https://www.csoonline.com/article/2505496/formerly-legitimate-polyfill-io-domain-abused-to-serve-malicious-code.html - Independent but the subject only has a passing mention.
• https://www.scworld.com/brief/campaign-exploits-outdated-wordpress-sites-to-spread-password-stealing-malware - Not reliable, unclear editorial ethics code. Subject does gets a moderate amount of mention in the TechCrunch article it's based on (https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/29/hackers-are-hijacking-wordpress-sites-to-push-windows-and-mac-malware/), and probably the only thing here that comes close to sigcov.
• https://www.wired.com/story/north-korea-stole-your-tech-job-ai-interviews/ - Reliable, but not sigcov. Again, the company itself only gets a passing mention. This incident has affected many tech companies not just this one.
• https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2025/05/14/ontmaskeringnoordkoreaansecyberoperatie/ - Probably reliable but again, the article barely focuses on the company itself.

External links:

• https://www.darkreading.com/cybersecurity-operations/c-side-lands-6m-to-combat-rising-browser-supply-chain-attacks - Not independent, it is tagged as a press release.
• https://siliconangle.com/2024/09/16/c-side-raises-6m-prevent-supply-chain-attacks-securing-third-party-scripts/ - Questionable reliability, webpage has some insane puffery and no clear ethics code. The article also comes with AI slop.
• https://www.pcmag.com/news/hulu-100k-websites-may-be-exposed-javascript-polyfill-domain-malware - Reliable but company is mentioned in passing.
• https://thehackernews.com/2024/06/over-110000-websites-affected-by.html - Only passing mention.
• https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/25/polyfillio_china_crisis/ - Only passing mention.

And please don't use AI to generate arguments in an AfD, or really for any other purpose. SecretSpectre (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, this is really helpful and exactly what was needed to have a productive conversation.

On Baways.com - you're right, there is no independent coverage of their ownership. I know them because of the Baways.com domain as it became a bit of cyber security meme and when I bumped into them again after they released the MSclairty intel I felt it was fair to give them some credit. Noted and fair point. I've left that part out. Companies often do press releases for outlets to rewrite them and release them. I understand your perspective but that does not mean that outlets didn't execute editorial review on them or went through a fact-checking process. These points are easily fixable.

• • Keep

Points worth contesting:

The nomination relies on an incomplete source review and mischaracterizes at least one of the sources it does cite.

On the Wired article, I strongly disagree. The piece opens and closes with Simon Wijckmans and cside's security findings. Cside is the central figure of this article throughout. I strongly advice that anyone voting here to actually have a quick read. It is a factually incorrect characterization to call it a 'passing mention'. The Journalist mentioned that he joined calls with cside job applicants. The article is built around the investigation that the journalist executed together with cside.

Your comment regarding the TechCrunch piece as 'probably the only thing here that comes close to sigcov' is an acknowledgement that at least one strong independent source exists. Since the edit further independent security analyst coverage was added. Together with the Wired Article, ESG, Intelyx, TheHackerNews, PCMag, TheRegister, Forbes, VRT and Mediahuis there is plenty of independent coverage.

On SecurityWeek, CIO.com, SCWorld: the existence of an advertising sales page does not disqualify a prublication's editorial content under WP:RS. For example, SecurityWeek, CIO.com, TechRadar and many of the other mentioned publications has bylined reporters and a dedicated editorial staff and is routinely accepted as a reliable source in cybersecurity related AfDs and at WP:RSN. Accepting this categorization would require prior community consensus - and if approved would have impact on many cybersecurity related pages on this platform.

Since the nomination further work has taken place to implement irrefutable independent sources like Forbes, Intellyx, ESG - since part of TechTarget...

It is also worth noting that by definition security threat intelligence mentions the researchers, either by name or by business, in passing as the prime subject is the exposed vulnerability or incident. Sources like TechRadar and BleepingComputer are industry standard independent outlets and will mention the sources by name but the entire article is built on the research that a party provides.

The article clearly has gaps but the article is improvable. The correct approach is citation improvement and further edits to add relevant context. Not deletion. The Forbes recognition, the Wired article, the mentions in TechCrunch, TechRadar provide ample coverage for the notability threshold. WP:IMPROVE is a crucially important policy. By pushing back on new pages based on personal opinions and loose terms like 'barely' and dismissing the basis of a story 'a passing mention' or 'I could not find' you discourage the community to contribute. Please feel free to make edits, but AfD should be kept as a last resort. Try to fix problems or flag them if you can. Be helpful: explain. Perhaps flagging an article for AfD when "the table generator wasn't working" can wait until you can generate a table so that your comments are detailed, actionable and understandable.

No one wants a back and forth. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum but please by all means chime in or provide further feedback to improve the article. Swagmansonsec (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

And sorry for the ugly formatting in this thread - I am still learning what is supported in the AfD format. Swagmansonsec (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wired article tells me very little about the company (called "C.side" in the article) that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This is not significant coverage. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 10:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't see any sources in the article or on Google that would pass the notability guidelines for corporations. The articles here seem to be mentions without significant coverage, routine coverage, or in trade publications that don't meet the audience requirements. @Swagmansonsec, I suggest you read them and then come back here with your top sources (see the essay WP:THREE) that you feel demonstrate notability. Reviewers here don't want to have to go through ten sources. IF there are good sources let's see a few. I don't think Techcrunch or Wired article provides significant coverage. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 10:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep— Duplicate !vote: Swagmansonsec (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. - I have read the concerns of PacificDepth and SecretSpectre in detail and read their shared guidelines and requirements. PacificDepth, thanks for sharing the WP:THREE guideline, I can see how that makes this an easier conversation. As per your request.

From my understanding and experience WP:SIGCOV requires the subject to be discussed directly and in detail, for which there are many examples.

1. NRC "Voor je het weet heb je een Noord-koreaan aangenomen als It'er" https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/08/07/sollicitant-frank-chang-zit-helemaal-niet-in-texas-en-spreekt-engels-met-een-koreaans-accent-2-a4902369 Cside and its founder are the central subject in this long form investigative feature which includes a cside organized interview with a North Korean actor where the journalist Marloes De Koning was present. The article goes into detail on the internal operations, the technical methods used to detect them at length. Significant - the subject is addressed at length, cside is the leading figure and in detail. Independent and Reliable NRC is the local equivalent of the NYT in the Netherlands. And it counts as Secondary source meeting all requirements for
2. Wired “North Korea Stole Your Job” https://www.wired.com/story/north-korea-stole-your-tech-job-ai-interviews/ The nomination characterizes this as ‘a passing mention’. That is a factual error. This is a Wired “The Big Story”, their most in depth editorial format, with the founder of cside as the picture. Simon Wijckmans’es name is referenced 19 times, cside once. This is normal, when a CEO of any company is interviewed, the company name may be mentioned 3 times, and the CEO who represents the company plenty more. The company is not a passing mention there either, the same logic applies. In this subject the entire story is built on job applications to cside. Cside is as central here as Wonka in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. The standard of significant coverage is not how often the name of the company is mentioned but instead the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail." which it clearly did. Independent, Reliable, Significant and Secondary source.
3. “Vlaamse ondernemer ontmaskert Noord-Koreaanse spionageoperatie” - VRT, Belgians national tax-payer funded press equivalent to the BBC but for Flanders. In this piece the dedicated tech and deep research journalist Tim Verheyden focuses on Cside’s discovery of North Korean job applications. Translated "Flemish entrepreneur unmasks North Korean spy operation."

Beyond these three: De Morgen, high quality Belgium’s daily newspaper, De Tijd, most significant Belgian business publisher equivalent to the FT but for Belgium. And on top of that Techcrunch, The Hacker News. I understand that press related to funding rounds is not significant, but that makes a job for WP:IMPROVE, not deletion. Many changes have been made since nomination. Strong Keep. Swagmansonsec (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)— Duplicate !vote: Swagmansonsec (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Comment and a note to closing admin: Swagmansonsec has !voted three times now. Also it appears there may be SPA socks. Swagmansonsec, please go back and strike your duplicated !votes. Only one !vote is permitted. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Two sources out of three above that I can access definitely fail WP:CORPDEPTH. One says (Google Translate), Wijckmans is the founder and director of Cside, a young cyber security company, where twenty people now work. This is definitely not a profile of an organization that we usually keep. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Keep: Business size is not a criterion under WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is defined by the quality of independent sourcing, not headcount. This should not be factored into an AfD discussion.

  Evidence was shared of non-commerical government funded press outlets, there is no question of legitimacy. Wired especially is a highly trustworthy source with fact checkers etc. ~2026-17021-75 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)— ~2026-17021-75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep -- reviewed mentioned materials. The referenced Wired article clearly states that Cside is a reputable cybersecurity firm. The cited article details its reasons sufficiently. Dj snacks (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: very PROMO, sourced to articles about other things, where this company is only mentioned. No articles that focus on the company, in my search either, only PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Keep - the statement 'very PROMO' is not substantiated by evidence or links. Please share specific quotes or links. WP:PROMO is resolved by editing, not by deletion. This is not helpful and against guidelines.

  Wired, NRC and De Morgen all have cside as their central subject. The existence of some PR material does not discredit other sources. ~2026-17021-75 (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)— ~2026-17021-75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I struck your bold keep recommendation because you already made a keep recommendation above. Please leave a bolded recommendation only once. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 22:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The closer should note that every keep !voter is a single-purpose account. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails NCORP per delete !voters above. Wired, NRC and De Morgen only mention the company briefly. I do not feel like arguing further with single-purpose accounts who are either canvassed meatpuppets or sockpuppets. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: The sourcing discussed so far fails to establish the sustained coverage as a requirement for WP:CORPDEPTH. SanneMonte (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject meets WP:N. 'Wired' piece is an investigative features where Cside is a primary source. There are plenty of similar live wikipedia pages on similar subjects with much less coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleeceandcorduroy (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)— Fleeceandcorduroy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - Fails NCORP and GNG criteria for inclusion as a company. The sources are unreliable, non-independent, trivial coverage or passing mentions, public relations/marketing or press releases. I'm afraid there is no way this passes the bar for businesses/corporations/companies. This AfD itself is highly irregular, and is filled with single purpose accounts (socks? meat? or connected contributors?) and duplicate !votes. Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 24 March 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.

Brother Mouzone

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

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

This is entirely written as an in-universe summary. Unlike other characters such as Omar Little or even Avon Barksdale who have some production detail included in their pages. Mpen320 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete due to a lack of independent sources. Is in universe writing grounds for deletion? SenshiSun (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

In and of itself, being written entirely in-universe is theoretically enough of a fixable issue that the mantra of "AfD is not cleanup" would apply. If there isn't enough sourcing to meet notability guidelines, or sufficient encyclopedic information to avoid falling under NOPAGE, that's another matter. (I have no opinion at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Wcquidditch is correct regarding in-universe itself not being a sole reason to delete. I was alluding to a lack of sourcing. I should have been more specific.--Mpen320 (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:FANCRUFT without outside or significant coverage. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep or draftify. The article currently isn't well enough sourced, but sources exist. We have this from the Australian Museum of Screen Culture. There is a hell of a lot about him on Google Scholar. I've not been through the original articles, but there look to be at least a few non-trivial mentions there. I think it passes WP:GNGBoynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - poorly sourced. As with a real person, two citations are not enough for a fictional character whose story is still ongoing. Ping me if you add more. I'm not opposed to draftification to give people a break. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

In my view two sources are enough, and that tends to be the practice here. And I don't know of any requirements that a story be finished in notability guidlines, but the story is finished.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to fictional characters, in the same manner that fictional characters have no protection against slander in law, and the story is not ongoing. What's with that comment? Geschichte (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep important chaecter in The Wire and a well written page more sources can be found per Boynamedsue Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:05, 23 March 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.

Pallavan Engineering College

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete this and all related pages per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also all fail WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL as poorly written Indian engineering colleges:

University College of Engineering, Pattukkottai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra College of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adhiparasakthi Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Government College of Engineering, Thanjavur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

University College of Engineering, Arni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

J.P. College of Engineering, Ayikudy, Tenkasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indra Ganesan College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Government Polytechnic College, Nagercoil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thiruvalluvar College of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete "Government Polytechnic College, Nagercoil" and Redirect remaining all to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete all All fail WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:07, 23 March 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.

Loyola School, Baripada

Loyola School, Baripada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions#Odisha 2. Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, India, and Odisha. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions#Odisha 2 – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions#Odisha 2 Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:09, 23 March 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.

St. Joseph's Convent Higher Secondary School, Sambalpur

St. Joseph's Convent Higher Secondary School, Sambalpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Sambalpur#Education. Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Odisha. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 17 March 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.

SM Forhad

SM Forhad (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)

Per WP:NPOL such elected position holders are not notable. Case of WP:ONEEVENT Rht bd (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Education, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Not seeing sources with significant coverage, the Dhaka University Central Students' Union article has a one-line entry listing the elected officials per year which is about all that's warranted here. Not covered by WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Student union leaders aren't notable under NPOL and there isn't much else to show this is a notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet NPOL and the only possibly-notable event is the controversy, which would fall under ONEEVENT anyway. There's not much else to say since there's so little here. BTW I have concerns re. a possible COI and warned the article creator accordingly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL another student article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 15:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Dhaka_University_Central_Students'_Union#List_of_vice-presidents_and_general_secretaries, where he is mentioned, as an ATD. मल्ल (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dhaka_University_Central_Students'_Union#List_of_vice-presidents_and_general_secretaries Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 09:53, 19 March 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.

Kheireddine Tunisian International School

Kheireddine Tunisian International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of schools in Tunisia as an ATD-R. Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. Tagged for being unsourced for 10 years. Didn't find anything useful in my BEFORE. Won't mind withdrawing if sources are found. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Tunisia. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:13, 23 March 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.

Institute for East West Strategic Studies

Institute for East West Strategic Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sources in the article consistently lack any reference to the organisation, or do so only as a function of its director’s previous work. Search for WP:BEFORE does not turn up any reliable secondary or tertiary sources on the organisation or its work. Legislate1754 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep A search of the sources in the Wiki library show several references to the activities of the institute in various journals. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Could you please (kindly) provide a couple of links? Genuinely curious as database searches pre-nom through a uni library & elsewhere turned up nowt.- Legislate1754 (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Legislate1754, do you have access to the Wiki library? (If not the links will be useless, so I'll have to post the citations of the articles). - SchroCat (talk)

  SchroCat I do not, sorry!- Legislate1754 (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I advise you to sign up for it - it's free and an excellent resource! Some of the results found were:

• "-U Power Names New Independent Director." 2024. Auto Business News (ABN), February 9. (although this one is about the director’s previous work)
• Wei, Zhao. 2025. “Dialogue in an Age of Division.” Beijing Review 68 (40–41): 30–31
• People & Points. (2022). Beijing Review, 65(42), 10–11.
• Horasis Annual Meeting. (2010). ASEANAffairs, 4(1), 38–40
• PR Newswire. (2024, February 8). U Power Announces Appointment of New Independent Director (although this one is about the director’s previous work)
• Inside China: Insights from the Red Baron. (2010). ASEANAffairs, 4(6), 42–43

That was from a fairly cursory search rather than anything exhaustive, but I can look a little deeper if needed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: Unfortunately, one of TWL's criteria is that the editor must have a minimum of 500 global contributions; unfortunately, their current, err, 32 edits falls slightly short. Still, at least they managed to nominate an article for deletion with the 30th. —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 10:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you– and I shall!

  Having waded through all of these though it does get to the point I am trying to make and that has consistently been an issue throughout a fairly COI-edit heavy article. All of these (and any news articles) merely refer to the Director (the article's original author) as the Director of the think tank. The think tank itself does not appear to do any actual work and only appears to exist on paper (or indeed as the Director's title, as here). I'm sure the director likes being addressed as such, but I'm not entirely sure we should treat that as notable in and of itself.- Legislate1754 (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep; as a significant panglobal organization it has been repeatedly referenced by news outlets as well as the literature. —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 09:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - my concerns re. this article are the same as those about Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, and the other related articles, Apethorpe Palace etc. The content is predominantly provided by editors with undisclosed COIs, tends strongly towards the promotional, and has a range of SPA ip addresses that seek to remove anything critical. However, as per the Pfetten delete discussion, these concerns aren’t grounds for deletion. KJP1 (talk) 10:29, 20 March 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.

İlknur Demirkoparan

İlknur Demirkoparan (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)

Falls short of WP:N/CREATIVE by the looks of it. KH-1 (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Turkey, Women, and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: No coverage in the Getty ULAN , no coverage that I find in Gnews, Gsearch is only sales/gallery sites. I don't see artistic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Her CV lists some other potential sources. I haven't examined any of them yet. pburka (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete -WP:TOOSOON This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. This article seems to be the result of a class "LaGuardia Community College". Source assessment below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.artsy.net/artist/ilknur-demirkoparan			Artsy website for selling art	✘ No
https://postcollapse.art/ilknur-demirkoparan/	MinEastry of Postcollapse Art and Culture		website for collective of which she is a member. Primary source	✘ No
https://www.markborghi.com/exhibitions/49-2-women-walk-into-a-gallery-ilknur-demirkoparan-and-jennifer-pochinski/			website for Mark Borghi gallery hosting an exhibition	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

• Delete - based on source analysis and search; fails GNG and NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete - while Zurich is an art capital due to its many museums and art galleries, akin to Santa Fe, New Mexico, this stub is poorly sourced for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NARTIST Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:17, 23 March 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.

Kiewiet Lengana Pali

Kiewiet Lengana Pali (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)

Name-checked as a coach for possibly notable artists, but no SIGCOV. Likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles, Artists, Academics and educators, South Africa, and Bands and musicians. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete - per nom.

The "Teaching philosophy" and "Notable students" sections have the classic ChatGPT "Bold and Bullet Point" paragraphs. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. You have clearly missed the part where in mentioned that he coached the likes of Masabane Cecilia Rangwanasha who is a South African soprano and is the winner of the BBC Cardiff Singer of the World . The list extend to Nkululeko Masuku finalist on Britain’s Got Talent 2024. These are two South Africans who were coached by Pali. I dispute this nomination for deletion as you want to overlook his work and influence over the two South African exports. KeMang?? (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously AI generated. If he's notable, and I'm not saying that he is, better to start over. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per what J Milburn said. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per J Milburn et al. - we are not LinkedIn, and we are not Grokpedia. There are many signs of AI editing. It's much better, from a risk perspective, to start from scratch. I don't think it's common knowledge yet that we've been under attack due to articles just like this one, which is why they keep getting created. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 20 March 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.

Internal Shuttle Bus

Internal Shuttle Bus (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 isn't notable enough to warrant a page of an internal bus shuttle service of a university. Most of the sources are blogs or primary sources with very few mentions by news outlets. Might also propose a merge under facilities of National University of Singapore or similar. ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, regardless of sources, there are some subjects that are hardly the material for an encyclopedia. There must be tens of thousands of organisations, including many universities, that offer some sort of shuttle bus service between bits of themselves, or other places their users/students/employees want to go. This is a completely run of the mill thing to happen. At the very least, the article would have to be moved to a title specifying which internal shuttle bus you're talking about. But in a university, we very often don't even consider individual academic departments notable independent of the university itself; regarding their internal bus service as independently notable would take something truly extraordinary. Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete most of the sources are orange/yellow and one red one, showing marginal to unacceptable notability... This reads as an advertisement for what amounts to a shuttle service, offered at pretty much any campus/airport/education institution/large factory complex. I guess with decent sourcing, there could be something here, but beyond basic name drops or DICDEF, I don't see much online that we could use to build an article here with. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to National University of Singapore#Transportation. Some of the sources are usable and the section could be expanded instead. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Note section has been moved to Facilities of the National University of Singapore#Transportation. ~ JASWE (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge information to National University of Singapore#Transportation as above, then redirect page to Shuttle bus as the title doesn't specify anything as to this particular university. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 07:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Singapore. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge selectively, although someone will need to dig into archives. Some of the sources seem to be independent news sources that work as independent RS, but they're old and currently 404ed. CMD (talk) 08:30, 20 March 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.

Knoxboro, New York

Knoxboro, New York (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:NPLACE Bryce M (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bryce M (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in keeping this page if we can find reliable sources to justify its existence. Information about places is valuable for readers who want to learn more. There seem to be relevant news stories out there, like this one: https://www.uticaod.com/story/mid-york-weekly/2020/11/16/knoxboro-nys-north-road-under-major-construction/6310217002/ Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• comment Aerials plainly show that there is a town at this location. We just need documentation. Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I've found and added several sources to the article. Most notably, I think, the hamlet has a relatively important geologic/paleontological site named after it, as well as an extinct coral species. Altogether, though, I hope my edits are able to demonstrate that Knoxboro is "given non-trivial coverage by [its] name in multiple, independent reliable sources" per WP:NPLACE. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Current sourcing shows it meets notability requirements.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Sourcing added to easily put this over the top (along with a lacking rationale; please explain further beyond a WP: drop next time, please, we need a proper explaination as to why the nomination has been placed). Nathannah • 📮 20:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above and improvements made. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of sources now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  P.S. They still have a fire house, which means it's at least big enough for that. Bearian (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:NPLACE Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:20, 23 March 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.

Hawkman (Carter Hall)

Hawkman (Carter Hall) (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 usual plot summary and list of appearances, with zero academic analysis or even reception. My BEFORE failed to find anything useful (the best I got is this Screenrant article, and it's mostly rehash of plot summary: ). WP:ATD-R points to a List of DC Comics characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Hawkman, where this identity is described in depth. The alias of Hawkman is likely notable, but I doubt Hall is individually notable of the wider identity. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Portrayed by Aldis Hodge in Black Adam (2022), generating independent film coverage and analysis. 85-year publication history (1940). Screen Rant and other outlets covered the character's film adaptation in depth. Article needs reception/analysis added per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, not deletion. Sparks19923 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Sparks19923 Valnet sources cannot be used to show notability per Wikipedia:VALNET. Just because a character appeared in a film does not mean they are instantly notable, and a smattering of situational sources or ROUTINE coverage would not dispel that notion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair point on WP:VALNET; I withdraw the Screen Rant cite and I'm not relying on Valnet for notability.

The question is whether the character meets WP:GNG / WP:NFC via significant, independent reliable coverage beyond routine cast/plot mentions. There is at least some such coverage: The Hollywood Reporter ran a substantial feature discussing the character's publication history and significance, not just the film appearance (Graeme McMillan, "The Many Lives of 'Black Adam' Hero Hawkman").

I've also located an EBSCO Research Starters background/reference entry (Hawkman (character)), which may be useful for basic context but I agree it should not be treated as strong evidence of independent notability on its own.

I'll add these (and continue looking for additional non-Valnet independent coverage) and expand Reception/Analysis accordingly. If, after that pass, the sourcing is still mostly routine/trivial, I'd support a redirect/merge to Hawkman per the suggestion above. Sparks19923 (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sparks19923 Both of these are about the Hawkman identity, largely, and discuss Hall as part of that identity. Most of this is just discussing the evolution of the role overtime, rather than putting significant discussion of Hall separately from Hawkman (Wikipedia:SIGCOV). This seems very much a Wikipedia:NOPAGE situation. Why split Hall out when he's only notable as being one of the identities of Hawkman, and is only discussed within the context of Hawkman's wider history?

Hawkman is definitely notable, but is Hall independently notable of Hawkman? My wager is probably not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the claims that were made by @Sparks19923: or merge with Hawkman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Is the person who nominated this page going to go after Katar Hol for AFD as well? --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge with Hawkman page. Since I had last edited the Hawkman page, I felt pretty confident you could merge both versions of the character into the page and treat it as a immortal warrior reincarnating multiple times. Unlike the Kendra version, which her story includes distancing and being more independent form her past lives, Hawkman in general has consistencies and addressing descrepancies is not out of the question.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - in fact the content of this appears to be partially merged already. It doesn't make sense to write a separate article for one of two forms of a character based on a few marginal sources. NotBartEhrman (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hawkman - Already sufficiently covered at the article on the main topic. The actual sourced publication information and such is already covered there, and the remainder of this article is simply overly detailed plot summaries and "lists of appearances" that are either unsourced or sourced only to primary sources. 21:07, 17 March 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.

Brzeźna (hill)

Brzeźna (hill) (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 have failed to determine where this hill is located. Either it does not exist or it does not meet WP:GNG/WP:GEONATURAL. FromCzech (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FromCzech (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Correct is Grzbietnik. Sorry for mixing it um. Input Zoom (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete— Article was created by accident. Fcstmani (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NGEO Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 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.

Dream Garden

Dream Garden (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)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, China, and Companies. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. Dream Garden (formally Wenzhou Dream Garden Amusement Equipment Co., Ltd.) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 23 March 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.

Jurgita Mačikunytė

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

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

Fails in WP:GNG / lacks WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. Svartner (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - there seems to be some coverage, including multiple sources that confirm basic facts. This is much better sourced than 95% of such sports biographies. Bearian (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails GNG. Sources present in article are just stats. Dougal18 (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Dougal18. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I was able to retrieve some coverage from tv3.lt but the most in-depth it got was the player scoring 7 goals in an 11–1 Lithuanian league match in 2007. Sources already on the page are primary and do not count towards notability. C679 12:05, 18 March 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.

Flowery Field Cricket Club

Flowery Field Cricket Club (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 indication of Notability; see this web search which excludes social media. I am not knowledgeable about cricket, but I suspect this should redirect to one of these:

• List of Cheshire County Cricket Club grounds
• List of English and Welsh cricket league clubs
• Cheshire County Cricket League
• Hyde, Greater Manchester#Cricket
• Sport in Manchester#Cricket

There is as yet no article for Greater Manchester Cricket League which this club may belong to. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and England. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hyde, Greater Manchester#Cricket. As far as cricket is concerned, it's completely non-notable. But perhaps it would interest WP:CRIMEPROJ? 🤔 Can't believe it's been here over 20 years, Jack (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I suspect we might find a lot of dross like this left over from 2005 if we really looked. Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That's definitely the case. Back then, it was quantity before quality, and pretty much anything goes as far as notability was concerned. I know I created stuff myself that I wouldn't consider nowadays, ha! Jack (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I tried to find old, small, cricket stubs with this Petscan, but I'm rusty with Petscan and for some reason it isn't obeying the 'older than' constraint, but the results are still interesting. Examining the eight articles shows a mixed bag, with some of them having references pointing to other Wikipedia articles, and others to sources with passing mentions about a final score in some match. I learned from that search that some cricket clubs go back to the mid-18th century, and although that is interesting, I don't know if age alone is sufficient to establish notability. If there is no standalone notability for the older clubs, maybe they could be redirected to a section in the History of cricket dealing with early clubs, and list them there. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I think Bromley, Epsom, Greenwich, and Westminster probably have notability because of their historic status. They were all important clubs in the 18th century, especially Bromley which was Robert Colchin's club. I'm not sure about the South African Army team, but the British Army team seems to be acceptable. South Northumberland and Tynemouth are certainly minor, I think, and I'd support those being redirected to a suitable list. I don't think I've ever used Petscan, and I didn't know it's still available. Jack (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)