Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 March 20

Chupkotha

Chupkotha (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:NFILM. Didn't find a single bylined review in any RS. Won't mind withdrawing if someone can find sources. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and West Bengal. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Star Jalsha#Drama series Shree Venkatesh Films#Hoichoi as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Star Jalsha#Drama series – Per Kelob. Svartner (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Svartner@Kelob2678 That's another Bengali series that you seem to have in mind, Irabotir Chupkotha, a long-running soap. This one is a horror film+series with a notable cast, a SVF/Hoichoi production, so that the correct target is Shree_Venkatesh_Films#Hoichoi; redirect there, per Wikipedia:ATD-R + Wikipedia:IGNORINGATD. ~2026-18344-21 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  You are right, I've adjusted the target. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:19, 27 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.

Hengaw

Hengaw (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)

None of the third party sources in the article give WP:SIGCOV to Hengaw. Instead, they simply cite Hengaw's reports. The only source that gives SIGCOV to Hengaw is Hengaw's own website, which is obviously not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination.

ThirdEye96 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Clearly notable (WP:NOTE). Cited by The Guardian , AP news , Reuters , BBC France 24 , UK government website . --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I went through all of the links that are not behind a paywall. Not a single one of them gives WP:SIGCOV to Hengaw. If you disagree, kindly inform us which of the source gives SIGCOV and how many words are dedicated to Hengaw itself (not third parties that Hengaw talks about).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Hengaw is frequently cited in news outlets as a source of information, including by Amnesty. If we keep this article, we can link it, as in: "According to human rights organisation Hengaw...." and then readers or editors who like to investigate, can easily find what organisation this is. Now I don't know whether there is a specific Wikipedia policy or guideline for this argument, as I am not very familiar with these types of articles, but I think my point is still important. Lova Falk (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC).

This is a great example of trivial coverage. The Amnesty source mentions Hengaw only once and merely says "reports from independent media outlets and human rights organizations based outside Iran with access to informed contacts inside the country, including prisoners and the families of executed victims. These human rights organization include Baloch Activists Campaign;1 Haalvsh, a Baluchi human rights organization;2 Hengaw Organization for Human Rights;3 Human Rights Activists News Agency;4 Iran Human Rights;5 Kurdistan Human Rights Network;6 and Kurdpa Human Rights Organization." This is not SIGCOV.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Too frequently cited, especially in the recent events in Iran by reliable news outlets and other human rights organisations to claim it is not notable enough. Rahammz (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above. There are two metrics here: one is WP:GNG, which is covered by WP:SIGCOV in various sources above (citing a big chunk of a story to their work qualifies here, in my book). The other is the repeated criterion across notability standards that a person/institution etc should be considered notable within their field by others within it, or considered at the "top" of whatever field they're in. Being widely cited and relied upon by high-profile organisations, such as the UK government, major charities and major news organisations, fits this. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Can you provide any sources that give WP:SIGCOV to Hengaw itself and not to third parties that Hengaw talks about? And can you tell me from which policy you derive the second criterion from? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's a source analysis of the above sources. None of them give discuss Hengaw in a significant way, and WP:SIGCOV is absolutely mandatory.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep WP:GNG is just a guideline, it is useful to provide the minimal background information we have about this NGO to the public. As demonstrated above, it is widely quoted in the media. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment You do not really find much information on Hengaw, likely because operating around Iran involves staying pretty secretive. Just a thought. Semsûrî (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Semsûrî, I wonder if it makes sense to merge this article to Iranian opposition? There we can cover other Iranian opposition groups that also do not have WP:SIGCOV.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:18, 27 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.

Kandaswami Kandar's College

Kandaswami Kandar's 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) 23:49, 20 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) 23:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paramathi Velur#Educational Institutions as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paramathi Velur#Educational Institutions as best WP:ATD otherwise failing WP:NSCHOOL. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paramathi Velur#Educational Institutions Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:33, 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.

K.M.G. College of Arts and Science

K.M.G. College of Arts and Science (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 and GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 23:49, 20 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) 23:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete — Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL owing to lack of SIGCOV in RS. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable school failing WP:NSCHOOL. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:38, 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.

K. S. R. College of Arts and Science

K. S. R. College of Arts and Science (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) 23:48, 20 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) 23:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of educational institutions in Namakkal district#Arts and science colleges as an ATD. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of educational institutions in Namakkal district#Arts and science colleges as best WP:ATD for otherwise WP:NSCHOOL fail. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of educational institutions in Namakkal district#Arts and science colleges Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:43, 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.

Jeff Storrs

Jeff Storrs (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. The only reference currently is a stats record book, and all I could find elsewhere were results about an unrelated bowler. Let'srun (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable football goalkeeper failing WP:BASICSPORT. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete no solid secondary sources fails WP:NATHLETE Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:37, 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.

Dr. Ghafoor Memorial MES Mampad College

Dr. Ghafoor Memorial MES Mampad 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) 22:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut as best WP:ATD for otherwise WP:NSCHOOL fail. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:18, 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.

Colleen McCarty

Colleen McCarty (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 article has a lot of sources, indicating careful construction. However, they are all at a local Tulsa and Oklahoma sources and/or do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I can't see this passing WP:GNG Boynamedsue (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Law, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment For disclosure, McCarty and I are members of the same bar association and have probably met. I'll withhold voting do to that, but will note she's a prominent local attorney in the second largest city in Oklahoma. However, not every prominent attorney in top 50 U.S. city will meet WP:GNG (in fact, few probably would). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Sources are not all local sources. New York Times, ProPublica, Mother Jones, Bolts, Slate, and Huffpost are all national coverage. All mention her by name more than once and are about her work to meet WP:SIGCOV per "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Pluribussin' (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you point to a couple of sources on the page that are A: not local, and B: dedicate a couple of paragraphs to Colleen McCarty, rather than interviewing her about something else. That is what I am struggling to see here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Like I said before, New York Times, ProPublica, Mother Jones, Bolts, Slate, and Huffpost all have paragraphs (more than one in each) about her. Then, I added 2 PBS articles after you nominated for deletion. One PBS article is about her filing a historic application. Her name comes up in the following articles several times. Please look at the reference list more closely:

Mother Jones,^[1][2]Bolts,^[3] Slate,^[4] New York Times,^[5]and Propublica^[6] Pluribussin' (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

So, Mother Jones provides trivial coverage. Both articles ask McCarty for opinions but do not discuss her in any detail. Bolts, not sure if it's reliable or not, but it again does not provide sigcov, as it is effectively an interview. Nothing quoting McCarty counts towards WP:SIGCOV. Slate and NYT are paywalled, I can't read them. If there is sigcov, post it on here and the problem is resolved, NYT again looks to be an interview though.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Just now seeing this comment. I did that below. NYTs is not an "interview." Glad problem is resolved will you retract this nomination? Pluribussin' (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

From the mother jones article (which does not seem like trivial secondary coverage to me, so I disagree with your definition of trivial here):

"Yet recently, Wilkens has started to harbor some small amount of hope that she might get out another way. In June, two attorneys in the state, Colleen McCarty and Leslie Briggs, launched the podcast Panic Button to spread the word about Wilkens’ case. Now they’re lobbying Oklahoma lawmakers to draft and pass a bill that would let courts resentence certain survivors of abuse—specifically, ones whose crimes were related to the domestic violence they experienced.

...

Passing a law like this in Oklahoma could have a big impact. McCarty, the attorney, estimates that 500 women who are now incarcerated in the state were convicted of crimes stemming from domestic violence."

McCarty is quoted from/mentioned 3 other times in this same article . So, even without the other paragraphs that may have quotes and that she's mentioned in, this is ultimately an article that talks about her and does discuss her and her work in detail. Pluribussin' (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Just added 2 PBS sources as well that talk about her extensively (one has many photos of her). Pluribussin' (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

•Just added 2 Guardian links. Unlike all I have referenced above (which talk about her extensively), those mention her in passing. Pluribussin' (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2026 (UT.:C)

Again, according to WP:SIGCOV those are all (PBS and Guardian) trivial mentions where she gives her opinion about something else and she gives a brief quote on that topic. Asking someone for a quote does not confer reliability on them. There needs to be significant coverage of the woman herself. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• See my above comment but I already acknowledged that about the Guardian links, but they are still national coverage, along with the NYTs, ProPublica, etc. coverage that does talk about her enough to meet WP:SIGCOV per "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This PBS article in particular is about how she is filing a historic first application. Her name comes up 8 times in it alone and her image is used:

1. Kemp, Adam (2024-09-13). "This new law in Oklahoma could give survivors of domestic violence in prison a second chance". PBS News. Retrieved 2026-03-21.

Pluribussin' (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't WP:SIGCOV interviews do not provide notability, in terms of coverage, it only provides a trivial mention of her job.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

PBS article isn't an "interview," she's just quoted. Also from it:

'McCarty's organization, Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, estimates that between 100 to 150 women in Oklahoma prisons right now could be considered for a new sentence under this law.... McCarty said the Oklahoma Survivors' Act is the first law that's ever passed in the state that will give people who have a history with a statutory violent crime the chance at sentencing relief.

"It's a cresting wave of people recognizing that incarceration is not the answer and that people are worthy of change and can live a better life," she added.' Pluribussin' (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

If you ask her a question and quote her answer, it's an interview. The article provides notability for the topic of the article, but not the people whose opinions are sought.--Boynamedsue (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Even if I disagree with your definition that these articles are overall interview articles, I don't think it disqualifies them from meeting WP:SIGCOV as they all contain secondary information as well (about McCarty and her work), and, once again, the wikipedia article subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" for it to meet that. Even this section of WP:IV talks about how there can be secondary information Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary? But that is not wikipedia policy. Pluribussin' (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Now sufficiently notably.--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I would look at the sources, they are not about Colleen McCarty and they all amount to trivial mentions per WP:SIGCOV.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's 2 paragraphs from the ProPublica article I previously referenced, where McCarty is mentioned 23 other times in the article:

"The case had particular resonance for McCarty. One of her earliest memories was of her teenage sister sitting at the kitchen table one morning with a bruised eye and split lip, having been thrown down a flight of stairs by a boyfriend. McCarty’s mother had escaped an abusive relationship only to be victimized again by a different partner before McCarty graduated from high school.

The lawyers wanted to pass legislation modeled on New York’s law, the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act. They thought that calling attention to Wilkens’ case, in which the abuse was both extensive and thoroughly documented, might be the way to do it. But first McCarty needed a sense of how many women were imprisoned at Mabel Bassett for crimes tied to their own abuse — a phenomenon that sentencing-reform advocates call criminalized survivorship." Pluribussin' (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok that is probably sigcov, and I've checked that we regard ProPublica as a reliable source. I'm not entirely convinced it proves her notability rather than the that of the case, but in any case WP:GNG requires multiple sources. If there are more showing this level of coverage, especially with regards to a different case, then we might be ok.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

There are. Pluribussin' (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so traditionally speaking, this would be the place where you say what they are and give the example.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Traditionally, I think you check the sources before nominating for deletion, especially those that aren't behind a paywall. I copied and pasted references above from the article that existed before your nom. Also, I question doing so due to copyright law. But these might be hard for folks to access and see:

From the New York Times link above (also talking about another case, but these are not the only paragraphs where McCarty appears):

"The question before the court that morning in Seminole was not one of guilt or innocence; it was whether Moss’s punishment failed to account for the role that years of physical and sexual abuse played in her crime. McCarty called Margaret Black, a licensed counselor specializing in domestic violence, to the stand. Black, who had evaluated Moss, explained that each time Moss tried to leave her husband, the violence escalated. Black described a lethality assessment she had conducted to measure the risk Moss faced of being killed or seriously injured. “Eighteen and above is what’s called extreme danger,” Black said. In Moss’s case, her review of the evidence led her to assign a score of 24. “This was a very, very dangerous situation for Lisa and her children.

..

Oklahoma consistently ranks among the states with the highest rates of domestic violence; it also has one of the highest rates of female imprisonment. McCarty believed the two were connected, and the surveys seemed to bear that out. Some respondents claimed to have participated in robberies or other crimes under the threat of violence from their abusers. More had been convicted under Oklahoma’s “failure to protect” law, punished for not doing enough to shield their children from the brutality of their partners, often while enduring that violence themselves. But the women serving the longest sentences were typically those who had struck back at their abusers. McCarty began talking to lawmakers about these findings, and in 2023, an early version of a domestic violence survivors’ bill was introduced....To McCarty, the texts reflected just how determined the system’s gatekeepers were to preserve the status quo, despite the new law. On Jan. 29, she announced that she would be running for district attorney, challenging Kunzweiler in the Republican primary.”

From Slate linked above (not the only paragraph that mentions McCarty):

"Briggs and McCarty began making a podcast about April’s case, and they collaborated with a coalition of nonprofits across the country to pass a law in Oklahoma to help survivors, including April. Finally, there was momentum." Pluribussin' (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Slate, I spoke about above, it's an interview that doesn't provide sigcov. In the NYT source, I understand the difficulties of copyright make it hard to demonstrate. The first paragraph looks like a trivial mention, but the context of the second could suggest that the article as a whole might be sigcov... or then again might not. It would require two or three paragraphs at least of the article to be principally about McCarty.Boynamedsue (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

We will have to see if anyone agrees with your high standards about triviality, which no one has yet and which seems to misunderstand the spirit of WP:SIGCOV. Again, the source doesn't have to be about the wikipedia article subject (re: "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") I think your concerns about access to the NYTs article shows your issue was more appropriate for the article's talk page, not a deletion nom. Imagine if every wikipedia article was up for deletion simply because one person did not have access to a full article... Pluribussin' (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding, the article doesn't have to be about the subject, but the text that covers the subject does need to discuss it in detail rather than simply confirm its existence. The reason I am dubious about the NYT is that the only person who says they have read it so far is a comparatively new user whose comments in this thread show they haven't had time to come to grips with WP:GNG in detail until now. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

All of the sources you have previously mentioned as trivial actually have secondary source level coverage of McCarty. You had access to the free ProPublica article, which was part of the article before your deletion nom, yet you act as if you hadn't read it as well saying "Ok that is probably sigcov" when I sent you quotes from it. You clearly are doubling down trying to make the others seem like only primary source "interviews" when they are not because you didn't take the time to actually look at the sources before trying to get this article deleted. Pluribussin' (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That's really not true, and you could probably do to take a bit of heat out of this discussion. I did miss the ProPublica article, and I did change my view when you showed me the quote. However, the other articles are situations where McCarty has been asked a question and she gives an answer which is quoted. That's not significant coverage of her by our rules.

I'll take the Mother Jones article you mentioned above. You quoted this section: "Yet recently, Wilkens has started to harbor some small amount of hope that she might get out another way. In June, two attorneys in the state, Colleen McCarty and Leslie Briggs, launched the podcast Panic Button to spread the word about Wilkens’ case. Now they’re lobbying Oklahoma lawmakers to draft and pass a bill that would let courts resentence certain survivors of abuse—specifically, ones whose crimes were related to the domestic violence they experienced.

Passing a law like this in Oklahoma could have a big impact. McCarty, the attorney, estimates that 500 women who are now incarcerated in the state were convicted of crimes stemming from domestic violence."

The part in italics would count towards WP:SIGCOV, but the rest doesn't, as it is either not about the subject (roman) or both not about the subject and a quote used by the journalist (in this case an indirect quote, in bold).Boynamedsue (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you admit that the part in italics counts, meaning the Mother Jones source is valid to use in this situation. Pluribussin' (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I said "would count towards sigcov" which, at its most generous interpretation, requires a couple of paragraphs dedicated to the subject. That's not a couple of paragraphs, it's two sentences.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that it is required to have a couple of paragraphs. That's only your standard. Accumulatively, the article is about McCarty's work. Also, here's part of another paragraph from the NYTs that I hope will put a stop to you claiming there is only trivial coverage of her:

"McCarty was cleareyed when we first spoke last spring about the challenges ahead. Many of the resentencing cases she was working on...were in Tulsa, where Kunzweiler was the top prosecutor, and they had very different visions of what justice looked like. McCarty, animated and intense, with large brown eyes that widened as she talked, spoke passionately about the possibility of second chances for those the system had failed.... After numerous delays, there was still no hearing set, and McCarty was growing impatient..." Pluribussin' (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok yeah, that looks like WP:SIGCOV from the NYT article. I still think wikipedia is probably better off without articles about small town American lawyers, but it does probably scrape through WP:GNG. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, I think you will find very few users who consider less than two paragraphs enough, except in cases like WP:ANYBIO or geographical cases. I will change my vote to keep.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Does this mean you will retract your deletion nomination? Pluribussin' (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• KEEP - Colleen McCarty has signigicat coverage from NY times, Fox 23 etc. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 13:19, 27 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.

Alex Mangels

Alex Mangels (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) 22:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – I found this , if anyone finds more sources, I'll retreat my vote. Svartner (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – The source found by Svarter is decent, but we there's nothing more than that, so this article fails GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable footballer failing WP:BASICSPORT. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet any of the WP:NATHLETE criteria. One of still hundreds of articles on second- and third-tier footballers that should probably be PROD'd. nf utvol (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough solid secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:37, 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.

Nichi Vlastos

Nichi Vlastos (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 lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Greece, Missouri, and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, not really a claim to notability here with 98 minutes played. Geschichte (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – I found this , but I believe that's not much for a player with only five professional matches... Svartner (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable footballer failing WP:BASICSPORT. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:BASICSPORT Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:37, 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.

Joshua Saavedra

Joshua Saavedra (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. The best I could find was [] which is a routine transfer piece from a student newspaper. Let'srun (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – I only found coverage of the colleges and clubs where he played . Svartner (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable footballer failing WP:BASICSPORT. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - far too soon. The only new source that I could find is his LinkedIn profile. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NATHLETE Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:37, 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.

List of Kelly Rowland live performances

List of Kelly Rowland live performances (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)

Ultimately, it fails WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. The page is serving as nothing more than a compilation of concert tours that are barely notable on its own. The bulk of the article is simply concert dates. But there are no records of tickets sold, concert financial gross, or even set lists (excluding the Simply Deeper Tour) for the performances mentioned. Sackkid (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Sackkid (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep You're asking to add fluff that's nice to have, but isn't required at all to an article that already has plenty of sources and is properly formatted and written (and often is superflous because for these older articles, just having the date/venue is perfectly fine); this is something you can add on your own (if properly sourced) and is absolutely not a hardline requirement for a concert tour history article. We're not going to merge this to Kelly Rowland, and certainly not to Destiny's Child because it's too long, so this is a nomination to nowhere where you're somehow asking for deletion on a 80-source article (and even discounting YouTube and other discourged sourcing, easily will pass GNG), or to merge it to other already lengthy articles, and the rationale is just you wanting it to meet some undecodable standard unknown to anyone else. I also see a talk page last edited in 2017 that you should have been using before coming here. Nathannah • 📮 01:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This is absolute nonsense. It makes no sense for Wikipedia to house this information. Sell it to GeoCities. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nathannah: You do realize that the sources are mainly promotional announcements which is common for any concert tour. All other sources outside of that are YouTube links, or links to websites where said-performance can be watched. When you subtract that from this page, there is no reason for it to be here. It holds no merit. "Just having the date/venue is perfectly fine", uhm no, not by Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting a merge. I think a full-on delete is better. A discussion on a talk page is unnecessary for something that doesn't meet criteria. Sackkid (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, there is no need to mention record sales, accolades, and singles on this page. "Throughout a career spanning 18 years, Rowland has sold over 66 million records as a solo artist with four studio albums, two compilation albums, one box set, two extended plays and forty-three singles, including nineteen as a featured artist and five promotional singles, and further 60 million records with Destiny's Child. Her work has earned her several awards and nominations, including four Grammy Awards, a Billboard Music Award and a Soul Train Music Award. Rowland has also received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame with Destiny's Child, and as a solo artist she has been honored by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Essence for her contributions to music. In 2014, Fuseranked Rowland in their "100 Most Award-Winning Artists" list at number 20." That’s irrelevant to this article. Sackkid (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Borges' map comes to mind. Is it Wikipedia's job to list all of an artist's tour dates? Trumpetrep (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:NTOUR. Azuredivay (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete this does not have any notability as a list as its own and fails WP:NLIST catastrophically. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant parts of this page with Kelly Rowland? Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:27, 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.

Crossfade (Swedish band)

Crossfade (Swedish band) (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)

Questionable notability, all sources have links that no longer work, point to a website with no specifics, or aren't reliable/independent. LillaRis87 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. LillaRis87 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Melodic (magazine) bio with 4 reviews (see bottom), reviews from rock outlets such as Metal.de and Scream Magazine, from large Swedish newspapers such as Svenska Dagbladet , more found on this review aggregate site , etc Geschichte (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as per the multiple reliable souurces coverage identified above that together show a pass of WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Further to above - reliable music source Rock Hard (magazine) has critical analysis of 2 albums: . ResonantDis_tortion 12:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep enough to meet WP:NBAND. Would like to see even more in depth coverage, but meets the threshold as is. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments made above notability seems to be met. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:30, 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.

Makeship

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NCOMPANY. Polygnotus (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep- GNG is clearly met by multiple sources that cover the subject in-depth. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys, Companies, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Since this is linked from DYK, does this fall under WP:CSK criterion 6? If so, can this be speedy kept? I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 20:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, CSK6 applies here. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:49, 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.

Homo imaginatus

Homo imaginatus (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)

A WP:NEOLOGISM that doesn't have sufficient acceptance to warrant notability. 2 recent articles by the same author supporting its use; little use elsewhere. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON to tell, but doesn't reach WP:GNG currently. Klbrain (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Biology. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 19:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep The term has been employed by Philip Ball and Ian Warden, and has been picked up here and there. Not huge, but not nothing either. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Both of those predate the sources by Lobo cited in the article, suggesting that these are just the occasional independent coinages one sees of a term that is not so hard to coin. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If these are three independent coinages then they illustrate another point, that people who know nothing about Latin sometimes invent "Latin" terms that make no sense. My own studies of Latin ended in 1958, nearly 70 years ago, so I'm no expert, but I remember enough to know that if imaginatus is a Latin word at all (apparently it is) it cannot possibly mean imaginative, but must be a past participle used adjectivally that means imagined or imaginary. As Dr Lobo works in Colombia he must surely know that the Spanish cognate imaginado does indeed mean imagined. Do he and his followers want us to believe that humans are imaginary? Athel cb (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. A completely unneeded synonym for a universally recognized term that has been in use for a very long time. If it were widely used I suppose an article might be justified, but as far as I can see it isn't. Athel cb (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NEOLOGISM, we need reliable sources that cover the term, not just sources that happen to use it. This is grounded in WP:NOR and WP:NOTDICT: lexicographers collect uses of a word and track the development of its meanings, but we don't. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Neologism Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:33, 26 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.

Arctic Explorer

Arctic Explorer (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 page is pretty much to me like a WP:PROMOTION. Most of the sources on this page are retail listings. There is only one barely SIGCOV source, and saying it is would be a stretch Filmssssssssssss (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Restore redirect to MS Arctic Explorer per nom. मल्ल (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect back to MS Arctic Explorer, which had been in place for over 18 years. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to MS Arctic Explorer: but I would not be opposed to pruning the overwriting with an article from the page history. This does serve as a reminder of one of the flaws of redirect pages: they can be overwritten with articles by anyone, even TAs that normally aren't allowed to create articles right in mainspace (it was a TA that overwrote the previously-stable redirect, which itself was an untagged {{R from move}} from the long-ago days when that wasn't automatically tagged). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to MS Arctic Explorer Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect There is no need to keep promo materials in the page history. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:39, 27 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.

Bharathidasan Engineering College

Bharathidasan 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:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_colleges_affiliated_to_the_Anna_University#Vellore where it is listed with source. RangersRus (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_colleges_affiliated_to_the_Anna_University#Vellore Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:20, 26 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.

Bharath Niketan College of Engineering

Bharath Niketan 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:NSCHOOL and NSOURCE Filmssssssssssss (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Andipatti as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Andipatti#Education where it is listed with source. RangersRus (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Andipatti Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Andipatti#Education – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 08:25, 27 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.

Sardar Kaure Khan Jatoi

Sardar Kaure Khan Jatoi (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 the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV most references are primary, institutional non reliable and the article relies heavily on routine and local information. No evidence of notability. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Another thing possible A COI maze: An TAs @~2026-17654-69 removed COI tag 001, we put the COI tag there so that other editors can improve the article. removing the tag with zero reason its like removing Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge, after the tag has been restored and another TA @~2026-17601-44 reverted 002 again with zero reason. Both of them the TAIPV tool shows from the same range. since that and the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV let the community decide. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 19:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is the first time I've seen an Acknowledgment section. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete No significant coverage. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:57, 26 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.

Galway–Kildare Gaelic football rivalry

Galway–Kildare Gaelic football rivalry (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)

Non-notable/infrequently-occurring sports fixture. Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT, WP:NRIVALRY or WP:SIGCOV. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down–Dublin Gaelic football rivalry and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cork–Kildare Gaelic football rivalry, there is nothing to indicate that the titular subject (a "rivalry" between these two sides) exists. And, if a rivalry does exist between these two sides (arising from just 5 games in over 100 years of competition), there is no indication that the "rivalry" has been the subject of significant independent coverage to establish sufficient independent notability to justify a standalone title. The only source in the article (a blog post) doesn't use the term "rivalry" (simply stating that the 1998 meeting of these sides was the "biggest game in Galway football since [19]83". But not because of any rivalry - or even because Kildare, specifically, were the opponents....). And, in my own WP:BEFORE, I can find no sources describing any meeting of these two sides as being part of a "rivalry". Long story short: There are no sources to establish that the titular subject is a "thing" - not to mind a notable "thing"... Guliolopez (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Appears it is just another rivalry manufactured by Wikipedia editors. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:02, 27 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.

Sons of the Oak

Sons of the Oak (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)

Much like the recent AfD on the 4th book in the series, these books are unfortunately low-notability and should be redirected to the series main page at The Runelords#Scions of the Earth series. As such, I will be bundling the remaining books in the 4-book subseries:

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

The Wyrmling Horde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sons of the Oak seems to have one review in Library Journal (ProQuest 196813861). no reviews that I can find (I got confused while originally making the nom, this is just a mention of it in a review for its sequel).

Worldbinder has a review in Publishers Weekly, but that's all I can find.

The Wyrmling Horde may technically scrape by on WP:NBOOK due to reviews in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal (ProQuest 196813861), but I do not believe that it makes sense for it to be the lone book in the series with a standalone article, per WP:NOPAGE. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Redirect per nom, though I would probably add the reviews for the individual books to the series article, as it seems to be lacking. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per PARAKANYAA and WP:NOPAGE. pburka (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I updated the nom re: Sons of the Oak and expanded the articles with what reviews were available. There's really nothing to merge from Sons and Worldbinder, but I did copy the current review text from Wyrmling horde as well (with attribution). Wyrmling horde may need a merged-from notice on the series talk page if this ends in redirect, but the other two shouldn't, I believe. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect. I think you meant 8th, not 4th. The reviews, per ISFDb, stop at the 4th (The Lair of Bones) . I support redirecting them except the Wyrmiling Horde, which if separately notable is still notable (although these are closer to capsule reviews than full ones, sigh, so the case for notability is not very strong). Ping User:Cunard just in case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  I was referring to the 4-book subseries that's under the 'Scions of the Earth' heading on the main series article. Re: the review size - yeah, that's why I'm advocating for a WP:PAGEDECIDE option. The Library Journal review for Wyrmling Horde is one paragraph, with about one sentence of content that isn't plot summary. PW isn't too much better in that regard either. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, which is why I agree. Such, let's face it, crappy reviews are not enough to develop this into something useful beyond identical fancrufty plot summary :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping. I searched for sources for each book and did not find additional sources from what the nominator has found. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Runelords#Scions of the Earth series (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 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.

Vabbing

Vabbing (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 article fails WP:N as it is something someone made up on tiktok, doesnt have much in the article, says that an expect said its the placebo effect in the article and most of the sources dont seem reliable Vanillapedia (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Sources in the article are enough for GNG. It was also covered in this academic paper. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep There are enough sources, including after this trend emerged, to meet GNG. Also, it being something made up on TikTok and a placebo doesn't automatically mean it's not notable. NuShark (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment It certainly predates TikTok (as a practice if not a name). Tom Robbins has a character suggest doing it in Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1976). And The Joy of Sex advised it four years before that: "Some men respond violently to it without realizing the fact; it's also the ideal perfume fixative, and a touch behind the ears at a dance, in advance of, or instead of, bottle perfume can be deadly." (Quoted, if you were curious, in this 1977 article on Catullus 13, which suggests that vaginal secretions are the perfume that will compel you ask the gods to make you all nose.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't reached a final conclusion here, but I wonder if the best solution might be to add a sentence to vaginal lubrication that says something like, "Vaginal fluids are sometimes used as an aphrodisiac perfume, but their effectiveness is unclear" (the available sources seem to support that much), and then redirecting this to that. Otherwise we'd have a permastub, it seems to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Placebos and trends can be notable, this is a cultural topic. BoneAppleTee (talk) 21:25, 21 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.

Manish Kejriwal

Manish Kejriwal (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've seen six sources that more or less focus on the subject. The first two are about his departure from McKinsey and the founding of Kedaara, both are related to the same event. Another source is an unbylined, quote-based article. The fourth source is an unbylined piece about his inclusion in a "super rich" list, which doesn't contain sigcov. The fifthfifth source is not independent. The sixth source is a listing of 25 young executives setting the corporate fast-track on fire. I don't think this is enough for GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Only IP Users/LLM supported maintaining in the last two AfDs, and the current version of the article is only WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – the subject meets WP:GNG. Independent reliable sources (including Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, Mint, and The Economic Times) provide coverage of his role at Temasek, the founding of Kedaara Capital, and his investment activities; this goes beyond routine mentions or a single event. While the article may have promotional tone and could benefit from trimming and improved sourcing, these are cleanup issues rather than grounds for deletion. JournalJane (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Kelob2678 Thank you for your work on this discussion. I understand you have concerns about the article, and differing views are part of the AfD process. However, it is not appropriate to label another editor’s comment as LLM-generated simply because you disagree with their view. Please don’t mark my review as LLM again, especially without notifying me on my talk page about it. My review and vote were made independently and in good faith, based on my understanding of the notability guidelines. AfD is built on multiple perspectives, and a single vote does not determine the outcome, that’s why we have these discussions. JournalJane (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• I hatted your comment because I believe it was AI-generated, not because I disagree with you. Please, assume good faith. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom and the source analysis. Page reads more like promotional. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Recent edits have toned down the promotional language and improved neutrality of the article. Any remaining issues appear editorial and can be further refined through normal clean-up. HibaShaikh (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment I believe the concerns raised here were already addressed in the last AfD for this article.

The first two are about his departure from McKinsey and the founding of Kedaara. both are related to the same event. so? Are you asserting these reputable sources are just press releases, or are you saying only one counts because they cover the same event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HibaShaikh (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

1. The Economic Times Article: This piece discusses his departure from Temasek and his intent to launch a new fund.

2. The Business Standard Article: This notes the actualization of his partnership with Sunish Sharma and details his specific deal track record.

These sources are editorial features, not routine corporate announcements. They provide deep biographical coverage that goes well beyond the routine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HibaShaikh (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ve addressed the source 3 previously. The Mint article isn’t actually unbylined. Regardless, a missing byline doesn’t automatically make a source unreliable—especially for a Tier-1 Indian financial daily like Mint which has strict editorial standards. It’s easy to see by reading the content that this is an editorial piece, not PR.

Keep in mind this piece is from 2008; the lack of a visible byline on current digital archives is likely just a technical formatting issue from a website migration, not a lack of authorship. Its actually a first-person feature where the author identifies themselves right in the text. As for the quotes—using them is standard journalism. They don’t disqualify the entire source; they only mean we shouldn’t rely on the quoted parts for independence. There is still plenty of non-quoted, independent editorial content here providing significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HibaShaikh (talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Since the Business Standard article is unbylined, I’m providing another bylined source that confirms Manish Kejriwal is the first-ever India-based private equity (PE) fund manager included in the 2023 Hurun India Rich List.

The source 4 and 5 articles are duplicates, both from Business Standard. I’ve already linked a bylined source above that verifies the Hurun India Rich List details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HibaShaikh (talk • contribs) 03:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Source 6 wasn’t provided as a standalone GNG-winner, but rather to demonstrate sustained coverage over two decades. The claim that all coverage is tied to Kedaara is simply factually incorrect.

There is a wealth of significant, independent coverage from well before Kedaara was even founded—another 2007 from The Economic Times offers significant coverage. Under WP:GNG, two articles with significant coverage are typically sufficient to meet the multiple sources requirement and establish notability.

The subject is frequently featured and sought out by top-tier outlets like the NYT, WSJ, Reuters, and Bloomberg as an expert and pioneer in the PE industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HibaShaikh (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Individuals who are not notable typically don't receive this level of sustained, national and international coverage. It shows that the subjects work has received sustained attention from independent aources. He is consistently characterized as a billion-dollar dealmaker and a private equity pioneer. Furthermore, the closing of his recent $1.74 billion fund wasn’t merely local news; it drew significant international coverage from Bloomberg and others which clearly shows notability.HibaShaikh (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• I fixed the link to the fifth source. Regarding the 2007 source you provided, it is too brief and contains only two paragraphs that are actually about him, roughly 150 words. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  Notability is about the depth of coverage, not word count. A focused article detailing career milestones is far more significant than a long, trivial mention. Even if we consider word count, this source clearly meets WP:100W.

  The subject isn’t a passing mention. He is the main focus of the article and is highlighted in the headline for leading a massive $6.2 billion global transaction. This deal received wide coverage in international and financial media.

  The source also includes biographical details beyond this high stakes deal, which shows clear and significant coverage of the subject. HibaShaikh (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. I concur with Kelob2678's source assessment. This article appears to be part of a broader set of articles—including Sunaina Kejriwal, Kamalnayan Bajaj Hall and Art Gallery (now a redirect), and other Bajaj family-related articles—that were created and/or continue to be maintained by the same SPAs and spammers. Yuvaank (talk) 01:44, 28 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.

Iqbal Shailo

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

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

Does not meet WP:PROF Legendbird (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Legendbird (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – The article relies primarily on self-published and primary sources, with no significant independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Listed publications and roles read as a résumé and do not demonstrate the level of impact required under WP:PROF. JournalJane (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JournalJane (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  More sources given Haqqhaqqtenge (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Shailo, PhD. Delete—it doesn't look like much has changed since the previous discussion, and my searches didn't turn up anything that shows this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NPROF). GoldRomean (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and others Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - poorly sourced; essentially there is only one citation and that is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hi I added more Haqqhaqqtenge (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - per lack of WP:RS. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. Retro music11 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete No solid secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:22, 26 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.

List of Elasmobranch cestodes

List of Elasmobranch cestodes (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)

Named as a list, isn't a list. Contents point out that this isn't even a definitive definition. UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm not sure if there are any other lists of parasites by host, but I think that could potentially be an encylopedic topic. However, this list completes fails to be what is promised by the title and doesn't cite any sources authored by the preeminent worker in this field (Janine Caira). Plantdrew (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and @Plantdrew. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - everybody knows that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NLIST Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:37, 26 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.

Vince Vance & the Valiants

Vince Vance & the Valiants (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)

3 sources are included the entire page, AllMusic source is generally unreliable (see WP:ALLMUSIC). Entire infobox is unsourced, albums section and charting part of the table is unsourced. shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect on AllMusic being "generally unreliable". The nominator's own blue link goes to an entry that says that the site's opinion of a musician's genre should be avoided and biographical details should be backed up with additional sources, but otherwise "There is consensus that RhythmOne [owner of AllMusic] websites are usable for entertainment reviews with in-text attribution." ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians. shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep a WP:BEFORE search in Google has several sources. , , , . .-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Two notable songs that presumably charted, plus a recent lawsuit, are enough for notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep with hit songs passing criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC. The link you posted for AllMusic is no consensus not generally unreliable and most music editors find it reliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep thanks to the additional sources found by the other voters above. The band's main claim to fame might be getting sued by the even more famous, but if that got them media coverage then it helps with the notability requirements here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:NMUSIC Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion above Funchier (talk) 14:14, 27 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.

A Kiom

A Kiom (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 can't find even the barest source referring to this place that isn't the geographic database that created this page. https://geonames.nga.mil/namesviewer/ gives alternate names "Ban Akiom", "A Kiom", "A Klom". OpenStreetMap considers GNS unreliable for Laos; I assume this is some kind of data error. Another editor more familiar with such places may be able to satisfy the legal recognition requirement (WP:GEOLAND) via Laos government records (https://www.lsb.gov.la); I wasn't able to find any e.g. World Bank reporting below the district level. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - The Lao PDR map explorer's 2015 village point data doesn't appear to show a "Kiom" or "Akiom" in Kaleum district. In fact, I couldn't fine any of the villages we claim exist in Kaleum in their 2005 or 2015 village point data. I would hope that one of our GEO editors will also clean up those articles while we're at it. The closest might be "Ban Klo", which is in approximately the right place, but appears to have a very different vowel sound. example image. Suriname0 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NPLACE Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:45, 26 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.

Naureen Zaim

Naureen Zaim (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. Cited sources are from affiliated publications or are unreliable. BookishReader (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, sources are shaky and others seem unavailable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:58, 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.

Munirat Marwa

Munirat Marwa (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)

being the wife of a notable politician does not give notability. The current page only describes this person as a wife, a mother, and a daughter. Not a biographical entry. I suggest Redirect to Mohammed Buba Marwa Broc (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Soft Keep: I generally think we should presume notability for first lady's of countries and the states of federalized states. They typically play a role in the administration and there tends to be both contemporary newspaper coverage and long term historical interest. However, I don't think there is clear consensus on this. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. We should definitely not presume notability for people for whom no notability (other than by inheritance) has been mentioned, regardless of whether other people of similar status sometimes do notable things. Athel cb (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG through multiple sources providing significant coverage such as This Day, disnaija.com, The Nation and The Guardian.Sandycubs (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)  

  All of this coverage fails WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED, even by first ladies. Without additional coverage, this article should be deleted. 🄻🄰 19:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Par WP:GNG.Heretoforeyou (talk) 2:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)  
• Redirect- I am ok with the redirect, as a halfway meet, checking the current sources as well as additional searches does show her notability is tied to her husband , and have yet to find enough supporting sources to suggest standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mohammed Buba Marwa per WP:NOTINHERITED. Lacks reliable independent coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is essential to clarify whether the sources presented in the article are sufficient for WP:BLP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect – The page relies primarily on routine, passing, or family-related coverage, with most sources focusing on her association with a more notable individual rather than providing significant, independent coverage about the subject herself. Without stronger sourcing and clear evidence of independent significance, its a redirect for me. Rudshoyes (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per above. Shoerack (talk) 11:28, 22 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.

Revolutionary Workers' Party (Uruguay)

Revolutionary Workers' Party (Uruguay) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was created in 2014 and has existed more or less unchanged, as an unreferenced stub, for over a decade since. I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this in reliable sources, with a Google Scholar search only bringing up false positives (both in English and in Spanish), mostly showing parties by the same name in other countries. The Spanish Wikipedia article only includes one potentially usable source, but it only mentions them as one of many parties that backed the candidacy of Tabare Vazquez in 2008. My browser also flags the website linked in the article as a potential security risk.

As I can't find evidence that this party meets our notability criteria for organisations, I'm nominating it for deletion. A potential alternative to deletion would be a redirect to the article on the Fourth International Posadist, which mentions the FOR as its "only functioning party". Grnrchst (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, Social science, and Uruguay. Grnrchst (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fourth International Posadist as best and most viable WP:ATD. Fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV to keep as is. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep -Normal stub, since nomination provided with proper references. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Fourth International Posadist. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:00, 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.

Bioheat transfer

Bioheat transfer (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)

Page that has been marked as needing sources since 2008. Page was redirected to Biomedical engineering in Feb 2018, then this was reverted on March 8th 2026 without any improvement to page. If all the unsourced sections were removed (~80% I estimate) all that would be left is one paragraph on hyperthermia and a "Bioheat model" that is a very simple 1D heat diffusion equation. It is not evident that this is a notable topic, certainly no proof here and I do not see convincing evidence in a WP:Before. Options are 1) restore the redirect, 2) draftify if someone is going to rewrite or 3) TNT until someone writes a decent article. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I restored this article because I found ample evidence of notability in a WP:BEFORE search, with lots of research being done on the topic, e.g. , , . I am fine with redirecting to heat transfer per WP:TNT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  Human thermoregulation is the relevant main cited in Heat transfer#In the human body, and probably a decent choice. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, I will make an effort to work on this article, so I would prefer draftification. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  Comment The page is certainly better, but I am not sure it passes via WP:HEY yet:

  1. The "Applications" section has only one, kindoff odd.
  2. The 1D Pennes model is presented after a paragraph criticizing it.
  3. A quick check finds formulations of Pennes model in 3D, why is this not mentioned?
  4. Also on a quick check, there are deeper papers such as this.
  5. No "See also".

  Ldm1954 (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I added some info and removed most of the unsourced parts. This is a clearly notable topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, clearly notable topic. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. Seems to meet notability standards. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 14:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Still needs a lot of work, and more examples. But the sources are now enough to show notability is met. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:32, 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.

Intergalactic FM

Intergalactic FM (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)

Aside from the 2009 The Guardian article, which is bylined, there are no other articles (the two FACT articles are not bylined) that contribute to notability in this article. It looks to fail the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Netherlands. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Speedrunz (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Fact is reliable, so I don't think that a lack of a byline is an issue. The radio station is Dutch, so it is reasonable to assume that most coverage is in Dutch, for example, I found this paywalled article that is probably about the station. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The piece in De Volkskrant, or at least what I can access of paragraph 1, doesn't provide much other than to make me search "Cybernetic Broadcasting System" as a search term. There is apparently a documentary film on its early years, When I Sold My Soul to the Machine, and it is mentioned in another, Italo Disco Legacy. What I am still missing is that next big source with in-depth coverage to save this article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete @Kelob2678, this is an article about an online radio station, which must prove more than ITEXISTS notability and has a higher bar to get over, which it hasn't with the sources available and its website completely reads as 'Twitch stream in audio form' at this point. Nathannah • 📮 18:25, 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.

Aadeel Akhtar

Aadeel Akhtar (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)

Non-notable promotional bio. Media coverage is focused on his Shark Tank appearance (WP:SINGLEEVENT). Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Illinois, and Businesspeople. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Research performance unimpressive, though it may get better over the next ten years. Athel cb (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – subject clearly meets notability through multiple independent reliable sources (including MIT Technology Review, IEEE Spectrum, and major media coverage); however, the article has a promotional tone and relies in part on primary/self-published material. Strongly suggest trimming unsourced claims, reducing company-style language, improving neutrality, and adding more independent secondary sourcing.

• Delete per nom. The coverage is interview based and mostly related to a bionic hand manufactured by his company. His h-index is 16 per Google Scholar, which is too low. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 26 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.

Doo Wop 50

Doo Wop 50 (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)

Could only find TV Guide directory listings and passing mentions, with no mentions after the fact of its existence. Could not corroborate "highest producing pledge drive" claim. Article has done nothing but gather dust for over a decade with no substantial edits. The album it was a tie-in for has never had an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, and Pennsylvania. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I would usually argue for a redirect such as TJ Lubinsky#TJ Lubinsky PBS television productions (which lists the numerous programs of the same vein they produced), but that article is also promotional itself on its face and argues 'this man single-handedly is trying to save oldies music'; most of the likely sources are either going to be television listings, or hardcopy newspaper sources which are just going to be in the same vein where the PBS station promotes it in a news article and outside a few pieces where the subjects are neutrally interviewed beyond their involvement, it is going to hit the same sourcing problems, plus the only way to verify the impact of each special on pledge break revenue is with the organizations themselves, which is absurd for the number of PBS member stations there are. I know we can probably find a few to meet 'sources three' but I'd rather they be proper rather than just 'title drop' promotional sources. Nathannah • 📮 16:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and @Nathannah. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROMO and failing WP:GNG. WidgetKid ^Converse 23:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per additional sources identified below. WidgetKid ^Converse 17:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Carter, Richard (2007-12-27). "Black R&B preserved in greatest musical show in TV history". New York Amsterdam News. p. 10. ProQuest 390178413.

     The article notes: "Yet, once in a while something comes along that's so good and so special, it deserves the "best" accolade. That's precisely how I describe "Doo-Wop 50"-the memorable music performance show which premiered nationally to rave reviews eight years ago this month on the Public Broadcasting System. The 1999 program marked the 50th year of original Black rhythm and blues, also known as "doo-wop." It was so special I'm going to ring in 2008 by again watching my tape of the sterling event while joyously toasting its great music and great vintage artists. The only negative-which is par for the course on public television-were long, annoying interruptions resulting in what some call "pledge drive fatigue." ... Lengthy pledge breaks aside, this 100-minute, once-in-a-lifetime PBS show was truly marvelous. In offering up such a delightful musical treat, the network tapped into a priceless vein of Americana. I'm sure everyone who saw the premiere, or the repeats since then, was transfixed as the greats came to life in all their creative glory in front of a large audience in Pittsburgh. The show was hosted by Jerry Butler, who introduced and warmly expounded on each act. ... The program concluded with the late Pookie Hudson and the original Spaniels doing their classic "Goodnight Sweetheart, Goodnight"-doo-wop's all-time anthem-during which they were joined by all the other artists on the tune in a moving sing-along. For millions of mature Americans who cut their musical teeth in the 1950s and '60s, this was the most, to say the least."

  2. Mitchell, Gail (1999-11-20). "R&B: The Rhythm and the Blues - 'Soul Train' Xmas Starfest Whistles Into Town; Jerry Butler Hosts Rhino/PBS' 'Doo-Wop 50'". Billboard. Vol. 111, no. 47. p. 27. ProQuest 1506043169. ProQuest 227104847.

     The article notes: "Stay tuned: Those collection-minded folks at Rhino Entertainment are at it again. This time around, it's a TV special commemorating 50 years of doo-wop. "Doo-Wop 50: Celebrating Five Decades Of Street-Corner Harmony" is being produced in association with PBS outlet WQED Pittsburgh; it will be broadcast nationwide on PBS affiliates throughout December. Hosted by veteran doo-wopper Jerry "the Ice Man" Butler ("Only The Strong Survive, "Let It Be Me," and other hits), the 90-minute special boasts performances by many of the original groups that made names for themselves in the '50s and '60s. We're talking the Platters ("Great Pre-tender"), the Marcels ("Blue Moon"), and Harvey & the Moonglows ("Ten Commandments Of Love"), among others. The special was produced by WQED's T.J. Lubin-sky, whose grandfather Herman Lubinsky founded pioneer R&B label Savoy Records. Rhino's popular 1995 release "Doo-Wop I & II" was the inspiration for the tribute."

  3. Morris, Chris (2000-07-15). "Rhino extending franchise with a third box of doo-wop". Billboard. Vol. 112, no. 29. p. 13. ProQuest 227124473. Factiva bbrd000020010803dw7f002pz.

     The article notes: "Rhino's earlier doo-wop boxes received an enormous lift last year from a PBS special, "Doo Wop 50." The show-an all-star live doo-wop concert originally broadcast last summer by WQED Pittsburgh and first aired nationally during the December membership pledge season-increased sales for the company's original "Doo Wop Box," first released in 1993. Rhino senior VP of marketing Garson Foos says that collection is now Rhino's bestselling box to date, with 175,000 units shipped. Rhino will issue "Doo Wop 50" on videocassette and DVD in August. A live album drawn from the show will be issued as an exclusive PBS pledge premium in August and will go to retail in November. "More Doo Wop 50," a new special featuring unseen footage from the '99 concert, is scheduled for a PBS airing in August. ... Foos says that "Doo Wop 50" has become "the top pledge drive show now in the history of PBS . . . I was told that it's raised over $20 million for PBS.""

  4. Wyckoff, Geraldine (2000-11-28). "Various Artists: Doo Wop 50 Live!". Gambit. p. 73. ProQuest 205823719.

     The article notes: " In December 1999, phones at Public Broadcasting stations around the country lit up as viewers responded to the airing of the fundraising special Doo Wop 50. The two-hour concert became the top pledge-drive show in the history of PBS. Taped live at Pittsburgh's Benedum Center for the Performing Arts, the all-star show reunited an array of surviving doo wop groups backed by a crackerjack band. Doo Wop 50 Live! compiles some of those memorable performances and captures the spirit that filled the room. Clapping, whistling, screaming and singing accompany Gene Chandler's powerful voice as the album kicks off with "Duke of Earl." For anyone who saw the special, a picture of the larger-thanlife Chandler making a regal entrance walking down the aisle immediately comes to mind. ... The producers, however, were meticulous in selecting groups that retain their core. Introducing Harvey & the Moonglows, who croon "Sincerely" and "Ten Commandments of Love,""

  5. Rogers, John (1999-12-05). "Doo-wop's 'Ice Man' looks back at 50 years of singing in harmony". Associated Press. Factiva aprs000020010825dvc50353y.

     The article notes: " And they still are, adds Butler, who with help from a score of musical groups with familiar names like the Penguins, the Platters and the Del Vikings, brings the sound of 1950s harmony singing back to life this month on a PBS special, "Doo Wop 50." (It airs on many stations tonight at 8 p.m. Central.) As the show's title implies, it's been nearly half a century since harmony singing moved out of the barbershops and onto urban street corners all across post-World War II America. ... But when Gene Chandler proclaims he's now and forever the "Duke of Earl," when Platters founder Herb Reed reiterates that he's "The Great Pretender," when the original Del Vikings reunite for a few more "Dum De Doo Wahs," it's 1955 again. Or 1960. Or 1970. Or whenever it was that you first heard something like Butler, Curtis Mayfield and the rest of the Impressions singing "For Your Precious Love." ... But "Doo Wop 50," filmed during a concert at Pittsburgh's Benedum Center, offered a rare chance to bring back the genre's original singers, some of whom had drifted into obscurity, even if the names of their groups had not."

  6. Catlin, Roger (2000-07-27). "Golden Age of Harmony It's Back to the Mellifluous '50s With the Doo-Wop Revival, Thanks to a Public TV Special and Some Very Long Memories". Hartford Courant. p. 10. Factiva hfct000020010807dw7r00t6w.

     The article notes: "Doo-wop's biggest boost recently came from the TV special "Doo- Wop 50," produced by WQED television in Pittsburgh. In what may be the most influential TV special since "Motown 25," "Doo-Wop 50" became the most lucrative fund-raiser in public television history, drawing more than $20 million in pledges. Besides spawning a second special, "Doo-Wop 51," to be broadcast this fall, it's put a lot of groups on the road for the first time in years."

  7. Violanti, Anthony (2000-08-18). "Thanks to TV, Doo-Wop Music Bops Back Again". The Buffalo News. Factiva bfnw000020010803dw8i00mnq.

     The article notes: "Last year a PBS special, "Doo-Wop 50," re-energized the street- corner harmony music that began a half century ago. The concept was simple: gather together a horde of singing groups from the early 1950s; put them on stage, backed by a band and strings, in an auditorium packed with adoring fans. The list of performers included the Chantels, the Spaniels, the Platters and the Duke of Earl himself, Gene Chandler. Jerry Butler, a smooth singing and talking singing star, formerly of the Impressions, acted as host and kept the show running smoothly. That special became one of the top pledge drive programs in PBS history by reportedly raising nearly $20 million across the country. It also made doo-wop hot once more. This month another PBS pledge special, "More Doo-Wop 50," kindled more interest in the old music. Rhino Records just released "The Doo- Wop Box III," it's third boxed set of the music."

  8. Less significant coverage:
     1. Masley, Ed (2002-08-11). "WQED's Lubinsky Moves From Doo-Wop to Rock". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. p. G1. Factiva ppgz000020020811dy8b00075.

        The article notes: "It all goes back to doo-wop with T.J. Lubinsky, the WQED producer whose "Doo Wop 50" special, filmed in Pittsburgh, is the biggest moneymaker in the history of PBS. ... It's Lubinsky's passion for his favorite vocal groups that drives him to produce. And the shows he produces now account for no fewer than four of the Top 10 earners in PBS history. "Doo Wop 50" tops the list with pledges of $26 million. ... Bennett laughs at the idea of a 20-something doo-wop fan, but that's how old Lubinsky was when he did "Doo Wop 50" -- 26, to be exact. He's 30 now, and as he's aged, his tastes have broadened."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Doo Wop 50 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified by Cunard that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Cunard. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:08, 27 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.

Indian Hill (Edmonson County, Kentucky)

Indian Hill (Edmonson County, Kentucky) (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 that the 916th highest summit in Kentucky meets WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kentucky and Geography. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to fail WP:NATFEAT, don't see a good target for a redirect. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:50, 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.

Madha Engineering College

Madha 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:ITEXISTS. Also reads like a BROCHURE Filmssssssssssss (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Arignar Anna Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Misrimal Navajee Munoth Jain Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Sairam Institutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Gopal Ramalingam Memorial Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 20 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)} 18:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete "Sairam Institutions" and Redirect all the remaining ones to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep as another greedy nomination that gives no evidence of separate source searches or much of a rationale except for the Madha Engineering College, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic:Christianity Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep we need to look at each one individually and find potential redirect targets and sometimes they turn out to be notable. Jahaza (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  For example Magna College of Engineering will redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University. Loyola-ICAM College of Engineering and Technology will redirect to the list of Jesuit institutions. Jahaza (talk) 00:54, 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.

Bhajarang Engineering College

Bhajarang 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) 12:38, 20 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) 12:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Anna University as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:21, 27 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.

Yves Engler

Yves Engler (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)

Vanity page for a non-notable author and failed political candidate. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Canada, and Politics. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Engler's career as an activist is prolific, whether you agree with him or not. There is nothing I see about this that says it is a vanity page.--User:Namiba 15:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep ditto what User:Namiba said. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Enough WP:RS-based coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – the subject clearly meets WP:GNG with substantial independent coverage in major reliable sources (including CBC News, The Globe and Mail, and the Montreal Gazette) across multiple aspects of his career, activism, and legal matters; any concerns relate to tone or sourcing balance and are better addressed through cleanup rather than deletion. JournalJane (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This shouldn't even be up to a vote, there's no basis for notability. It should have been a speedy deletion when this article was created, and now we are stuck with a situation where because this article exists, it enhances the subject's public profile unduly, and as such it functions as advertising and therefore fails at WP:NOTADVOCACY. There's not in fact substantial coverage, if you actually read the citations, Engler is not the subject of the majority of them, the reputable sources where he is the subject are just about his criminal activity and since we should avoid such content as per Wikipedia:Criticism, there's yet less reason to keep this article. Andwats (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  I see the Criticism issue, although some of the "Criticism" in the Legal issues section seems to be also activist in nature (see the current last paragraph there)... and if it activist, then it isn't really damaging to the reputation of an activist whose goal is to bring attention to his cauess Drew Stanley (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: So obvious of a GNG pass that I question why this really ended up here. Calling it a vanity page is a bit of a stretch, but if anyone thinks it's that bad, you should edit it and fix it. MediaKyle (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Amen to that. Pluribussin' (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Improve, don't remove. If only everyone nominating pages for deletion would just try to improve articles instead...Pluribussin' (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Every obscure and niche writer and conspiracy theorist doesn't rise to the level of warranting a wikipedia article, even if their antics have resulted in periodic passing mention in mainstream news.ChristofferItzakah (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I have very little to say besides agreement with User:Namiba. As someone who found this article genuinely helpful, I am perplexed by a movement to remove it. Chickenman0426 (talk) 23:51, 26 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.

Kamban College of Arts and Science for Women

Kamban College of Arts and Science for Women (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 and WP:GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Tamil Nadu, Education, and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Schools, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in GNG. Couldn't find any suitable redirect target though. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 27 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.

Sree Krishna College, Guruvayur

Sree Krishna College, Guruvayur (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) 11:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kerala, Organizations, India, and Education. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Guruvayur#Education as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Guruvayur#Education as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:15, 27 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.

Don Bosco Community College, Dindigul

Don Bosco Community College, Dindigul (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) 11:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Tamil Nadu, Education, and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Barely anything about the institute. Too non-notable to even have a redirect. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Searching for sources did not yield anything of note, I agree against a redirect since Tamil Nadu Open University has a list of very loosely affiliated community colleges in the hundreds. nahleghini (talk) 23:05, 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.

Pope John Paul II College of Education

Pope John Paul II College of Education (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) 11:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

How does it fail? Sorry I'm new here. هادية أنسو (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The fact that it exists isn't enough. It must have significant coverage by independent sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Organizations, Education, and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm not seeing any media coverage at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:34, 22 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.

Corona virus

Corona virus (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)

Polemical essay, not an encyclopaedia article Mariamnei (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei, it was a redirect and should not be deleted. The recent vandalising edits can just be reverted. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I created the redirect when I first tried to search for "Corona virus" back in 2007. It serves a useful purpose as a redirect and we can keep it that way. --Kjoonlee 11:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Coronavirus, which was the target prior to edits by a TA. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Speedy restore redirect to Coronavirus, should be uncontroversial. मल्ल (talk) 18:42, 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.

Betty Elizabeth Zormelo

Betty Elizabeth Zormelo (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/GNG by the looks of it. KH-1 (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: only sources I can find passingly mention the subject or are database entries with no depth. Laura240406 (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ghana, Women, and Businesspeople. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete - not notable and promotional. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 13:48, 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.

PapersOwl

PapersOwl (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)

Advert for unremarkable essay mill; sources are far from meeting WP:CORPDEPTH and I sm unable to find anything independent showing notability. The creator claims to have no conflict of interest, but even so, the article is basically an advert masquerading as an article. bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Education. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. मल्ल (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete or re-draftify; no sources to establish notability Drew Stanley (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that I draftified the article once but the creator moved it back to mainspace, so here we are. --bonadea contributions talk 11:27, 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.

Zee Aflam

Zee Aflam (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)

Unsourced. Restore previous redirect which has been removed a few times. Mariamnei (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Zee Aflam Is Unsourced ~2026-17311-16 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Television, and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises#International: this nomination was actually overdue, given the repeatedly-contested BLARs (at some point, if there are repeated signs of contesting and an AfD has not been conducted, we have to go through the motions of a nomination to confirm non-notability). This was semi-protected for a few months last year; as every contesting has been by IPs and TAs (and one contesting came days after the semi-protection expired), that should probably be restored with no expiration date (and I'm not opposed to deleting the article history and its unsourced text and simply recreating as a redirect either). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises#International per WCQuidditch It Is Overdue And BLARs This Is Semi Protected Last Year And No One Read This ~2026-17311-16 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect High time to cull some of the non-notable Zee channels with standalone articles that don't merit them. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Redirect per Sammi Brie Notable Zee Channels Did Not Merit ~2026-18775-42 (talk) 00:00, 26 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.

Samdani Art Foundation

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

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

• Delete and redirect to Dhaka Art Summit - the subject is not independently notable enough for Wikipedia. Created by paid/coi editor. Rht bd (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Business, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Dhaka Art Summit - This article is a messy promotional blurb and does not meet WP:GNG. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 21:03, 22 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.

Rashna Imam

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}}.

Rashna Imam (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 in depth significant coverage. Received some news attention for her husband. The article is also promotional. Rht bd (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 17:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Has wide coverage Sajid Ahmed Nijhu (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Only her political career is tied to her husband's. But if you search her name on YouTube, you will see that she has appeared as a legal expert on multiple Bangladeshi channels.

Saakibrahman (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Saakibrahman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Thanks for your efforts in collecting new references about the subject. But unfortunately, talk shows and interviews are primary non independent sources, which are unreliable for establishing notability in Wikipedia. Rht bd (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Law. Rht bd (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable for her advocacy work. Zuck28 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am unimpressed by the quality of comments favoring keeping the page, as they generally do not appear to be based on policy and guidelines. As such i have decided to extend the discussion for another week in the hopes of getting a clear PG based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per PacificDepths.

Which sources demonstrate her notability for advocacy? @Zuck28 Drew Stanley (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Business Standard profile	Similar to this case, combination of WP:NEWSORGINDIA leads that profiles in Business Standard are not a good gauge of notability			✘ No
Passing mentions			passing mention	✘ No
SuperLawyer interview	interview	not reliable		✘ No
Akhtar Imam profile	employer website			✘ No
Bunch of YouTube videos where subject is an interviewee	interviews		content is not about the subject but about subject's expertise	✘ No
Daily Star Asia 21 announcement			routine	✘ 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