Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 21

María Zambrano

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

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

Not a single source in sight also very likely full of WP:LLM material. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The version of the article before today's TA edits includes a book-length biography from the University of Wales Press and an edited volume about her . The LLM issue can be easily resolved by reverting to a pre-LLM version of the article. MCE89 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi! It's not LLM ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I am a student writing it currently, I have a ton of sources I am about to add in. ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm studying Maria Zambrano, right now I am in the Maria Zambrano foundation in Spain. ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry -- I have been working on it in a google doc and uploading it slowly but I promise I have a lot of bibliography, I will stop writing and start doing the citations first instead ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I am a bit new to wikipedia so the way to add the references is new to me, I was going to read up on it, but I am a university student writing my thesis on Zambrano. ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and revert to version of 02:45, April 13, 2026 by HarukaAmaranth per the obvious notability indicated by MCE89 and the obvious foundational LLM slop of the newly added material. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm about to add the citations though and improve it ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have a really long bibliography, everything is fact checkable and the last version is missing a lot of important information ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Especially the right hand side bio that I added in is much better than it was. It's going to be better with sources I'm doing it now ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry struggling with wikipedia editor...my goal is to create a good page for her with full English biography in the next few days. I guess maybe it's better to create it all in Google Docs instead of adding little by little? I am trying to use the English pages for Hannah Arendt and Simone Weil as references ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  (as models for how to do it I mean) ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, do not create a new article. Build on and improve the existing work of other editors, a little at a time, adding sources as you go to show where your information is from. PamD 07:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't throw away the one that was there before, the skeleton is still in this one and the sources and information that were there are there before. But the page in English deserves to be much longer, if you look at the length/detail of the page in Spanish you can see Zambrano is very important, she deserves a page in that same amount of detail but for an English-speaking audience with context etc. I should have added sources as I went, that's my mistake. but if you can see I added in many and will continue working on it. I also know like 5 English-speaking scholars of Zambrano in the UK and the US so I was planning to send it once I did the best I could to them to ask them to fact check and contribute. ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  The previous page had extremely few footnotes and not even a complete bibliography. I am doing my best to improve it. If you cross reference this with what was there before you can see that there are no discrepancies and it's the same information with more detail, quotes and sources ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Philosophy, Poetry, Politics, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable. The version with "Not a single source in sight" had "sources" including a full book and several relevant ELs. "Needs more footnotes", certainly - and that's been true even before the current spate of edits, but AfD isn't the place for that discussion. PamD 07:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's important to me that there is a good page for her in English and I'm doing the best I can to help improve the bare bones one that was there before. I am writing my thesis on Zambrano, I have read tons of material, right now sitting with like 20 books on her on the table in front of me, and I've started to add in a bunch of citations from these. I am going to send it when I'm done to as many English speaking scholars of her as I know to ask them to also fact check and contribute. Please don't delete it. ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  But I also am glad that there are procedures to make sure info is correct and understand that everything needs to be sourced. I am now working on sourcing every sentence to a book or article that I've read, and am going to have people look over it. I only want to help to improve the page. It was never my intention to not cite, I just started the project planning to import the citations as the second step. Yesterday I spent like 6 hours working on writing the version that is there now. ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I urge you to slow down and familiarize yourself with wiki tools and processes before making more large scale changes. For example, you're adding dozens of duplicate references that someone will have to clean up. They may find it simpler to just revert all of your changes. pburka (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  What are these "dozens of duplicates," can you give me an example? do you see anything else wrong in the structure, can you give any advice on how it can be improved? I've been trying to read through the processes to learn how to do it better. I'm feeling a little bit discouraged because I spent so long working on it so far just as a volunteer/as a student, and I was so excited to help improve what was there, but then here people just said that what I worked hard to write and source is "LLM slop," that they would just delete it, etc. I'm happy to read and learn more about editing, whatever it takes to improve the article because I believe that the past version was insufficient and it deserves to be better, again it didn't even have any citations and had so little information about someone who there is so much out there about. Any advice is appreciated. ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The topics fulfills WP:GNG requirements by a lot. Reliable sources about the subject abound. There is no reason to nuke this with a deletion for LLM concerns since valid versions of the article have existed since its very inception in good ol' 2006.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep but revert. There are many reliable sources on other languages' articles. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I tried to prioritize books/journal articles and English language sources especially in the bibliography if you can see that because I if people speak Spanish or other languages they can just go to look at the Spanish or other language pages. This page needs to be a good intro for people who only speak English. It should include extra context about Spanish history/the civil war situation for Anglophone readers that the Spanish article assumes everyone already knows. If you have more advice about how to improve it can you be more specific? ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs revision, specifically addressing the citation issue. A quick search revealed other sources that could be used in the article: , , , . Pololo1320 (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  One of the links that you include here [5] from the University of Barcelona I already have cited in the article as it stands. There are so many other potential sources, really hundreds to thousands of books and journal articles, that I could incorporate, including from the Spanish language version of the article if people want that. These other ones you include here are kind of surface level French pages, not scholarly articles or books, although one of them is a good intro to her in French. Can you advise on specifically how the citations can be improved? I've added about 80 citations, one that every piece of information there can be traced to. ~2026-20243-64 (talk) 22:09, 27 May 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.

Take To The Seas

Take To The Seas (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)

Local band with no meaningful coverage. Airplay on a local radio station's local talent strand doesn't establish notability, nor does occasional plays on a new music show on national radio, and the magazines referenced aren't of note either. Can't appear to find anything else such as substantive coverage from reputable titles. KaisaL (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note Highly likely to be a COI-created article as the creator User:Mattmonster182 only worked on this article and shares their first name Matt with the band's lead singer. KaisaL (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Another Note - If the article is kept, its title will have to be moved to confirm to WP capitalization rules for the second and third words. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. KaisaL (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I can find no pro reviews of their one album, or anything else reliable about the band's history and biography. They are only visible in the usual retail and streaming services, and even those entries are fairly rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, sources are scant and it fails WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 28 May 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.

Legendsong Saga

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

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

I propose merging to Darkfall because this article is overly detailed and the key information overlaps with the latter page. If this article was more comprehensive, it would overlap even more. However, because there isn't anything on the talk page I want to wait before doing it unilaterally to give time for discussion. Animorphology (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related AfD discussions. Animorphology (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I linked the wrong Darkfall! It's Darkfall (Carmody novel) not the one linked above. My bad! Animorphology (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I normally prefer to have a series page as opposed to adding a series section to the page for the one notable book. A series page typically makes it easier for Wikipedia to more comprehensively cover the series and avoids us having extremely weak individual articles that are little more than a plot synopsis and a couple of reviews, as it collects into one neat and efficient page. This looks to be a bit of an exception to that, as the first book has enough coverage to build out a decent themes section.

I suppose the question at hand here is this: is the second book in the trilogy notable? If it is, then a series page makes sense. If the individual entries are notable enough for their own articles, then the series is also notable and a series page would make sense - it would just need to be cleaned up and sourced. It's one of those rare situations where it would actually inherit the notability because it's the sum of the individual parts. If the second book isn't notable then it makes more sense to retain the article for the first book and just merge everything in. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect. That was an easy search. The second book does not pass NBOOK in the slightest as there's little actual coverage of the work in question. The notability of the series seems to be limited to the first book. There's honestly very little talk about the series outside of the first book, so much so that this is one of those rare situations where I genuinely don't think that a series page is warranted. I would recommend also redirecting the second book to the article for the first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've merged the pertinent information into the book's article. Everything in the series page is unsourced and I don't really think that there's anything pertinent to merge other than the basics. I've also redirected the second book to the new section in the first book's article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I second @ReaderofthePack whom I trust to have done a good BEFORE, and concur that there is nothing worth merging here due to poor (to say the least...) sourcing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 24 May 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.

Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce

Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Royal Society of Arts because a change of name does not warrant two articles.

Disclosure: I am a Fellow of the Society; however I do not speak for them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 11:20, 23 May 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.

Olga Raevskaya

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

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

This is an AI-generated BLP. It was first generated and pasted into an userspace sandbox page, complete with OAICITES: Diff/1354167866. The text in the current revision in article space is more or less identical. --Gurkubondinn 10:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Suspected AI-generated articles. --Gurkubondinn 10:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Language, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: The Knight of the Ordre des Palmes académiques award can be given to up to 4547 annually so it's not an assumption of notability. 🄻🄰 15:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per oaicites being a clear WP:NOLLM violation. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Even without the AI generation we do not have evidence of notability. Her citation counts are not enough for WP:PROF#C1, the Academic Palms is not enough for #C2, no other PROF criterion is evident, and all of the sources (taken at face value) look like the sort of primary sources that can verify claims but not contribute to WP:GNG notability. The obvious AI generation makes the case for deletion even clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Keep, as the subject’s long-term institutional leadership is also relevant under WP. Olga Raevskaya served as Chief Academic Secretary of the Academic council of Lomonosov Moscow State University for twenty-nine consecutive years (1996–2025), in addition to heading several academic departments. The Academic Council is the university’s principal academic governing body, making this a senior leadership position at the university-wide level. Smallhedgehog (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Note that Smallhedgehog has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  And if you look at the main sockpuppeteering account, Eraevsky (talk · contribs), on the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias, you can see that they have claimed to be someone with a similar name (Ravensky) as the subject of the article at AfD here. I'm using Firefox's machine translation because I don't speak Hebrew (or Russian), but it looks like Smallhedgehog was blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia for both sockpuppetry and concerns over COI editing. --Gurkubondinn 13:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for the feedback. The article has now been completely rewritten from scratch and carefully reviewed. All previously present AI-generated artifacts, formatting errors, and unsupported material, have been removed. The current version is based exclusively on verifiable sources, with references rechecked, the text substantially restructured in accordance, and sourcing requirements, and additional independent secondary sources added to address notability concerns. I respectfully ask participants to evaluate the article in its current revised form. Smallhedgehog (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: A lot of excessive detail indicates that this was done using an LLM. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 20:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  That is correct. The user has admitted that it was generated: Diff/1354338126. That means that the article fails NOLLM. --Gurkubondinn 20:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I manually reviewed the article, independently verified all statements against reliable sources, substantially revised and condensed the text, and removed any questionable wording or formatting. The current version contains only source-verified information that has been manually edited. Smallhedgehog (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Struck repeated !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think this is the difference between the original version at AfD nom and the current version. Unless you can explain how you think you have "revised" the content, I can't see much improvement. The dates on some of the referencing code has been changed, the wording has slightly changed. What else have you done that makes it substantially your edits and not the llm? JMWt (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JMWt: you probably won't get a reply because the user has been blocked for sockpuppetry. See WP:SPI/Eraevsky. --Gurkubondinn 13:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 20:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Keeping aside LLM issue, the subject person doesn't pass any criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. --SatnaamIN (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as it is LLM generated so it fails under WP:AISIGNS and notability under WP:NACADEMIC.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: LLM use, Sockpuppets, unreliable sources, WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 27 May 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.

Amand Lucas

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and lacks any independent sources, and the article hasn't changed much since its creation. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 20:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: No real claim of significance, –DMartin (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Physics, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Keep of a weak page. His Scopus profile shows an h-factor of 46 and 7.3K cites. Given that he retired in 2003 and Scopus numbers are low compared to Google Scholar, this is a clear pass of WP:NPROF#C1. In addition, the one reference on the page is part of "Proceedings of the WBW22 Workshop, dedicated to Prof. A.A. Lucas on his retirement" that is a pass of WP:NPROF#C1c. I corrected the source, but unfortunately it is paywalled, otherwise I would have checked it for more sources. (Those are really big names on that paper.) Google AI claims he was elected as an APS Fellow in 1983, which would qualify via WP:NPROF#C3 -- I am not adding that of course. It does look like a proper WP:BEFORE was not done. ~ŤheŴubṂachine, maybe you would like to consider withdrawing the nomination. Courtesy ping of –DMartin. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C3 for being elected an APS Fellow, per the APS website . Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. No vote for the moment, because although the subject is notable the article is feeble in the extreme, and says almost nothing. If it can be expanded into a useful account of Amand Lucas's work I'll be happy to support it. Athel cb (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Triple pass of WP:PROF#C3, and plausible pass of #C2. Being in a stubby state is not a valid deletion rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep.Lucas is a winner of the Francqui Prize (1985), which is Belgium's most prestigious scientific award and which Wikipedia recognises as a standalone notability criterion under WP:NPROF#1 given its selectivity and national significance; past laureates are nearly universally considered notable. He is also a member of the Academie Royale de Belgique, a member of the Academia Europaea, and a Fellow of the APS. His ResearchGate profile shows approximately 10,000 citations across 231 publications, meeting WP:NPROF#4 independently. A dedicated tribute section in Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena (vol. 129, 2003, pp. 83-85) constitutes substantive independent coverage. But yeah I agree that the article needs sourcing improvements. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Coincidentally, the the current word count is 137. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 27 May 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.

Vargskelethor Joel

Vargskelethor Joel (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'm not seeing any significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources; it's either passing mentions or unreliable. Skyshiftertalk 20:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Internet. Skyshiftertalk 20:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Nighfidelity, since they reviewed this article. 1timeuse75 (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought that he might pass WP:NMUSIC due to the mention in the Feral House-published book and the reviews in metal websites, but I'm not really sure. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The metal websites seem all unreliable. I don't have access to the book, but if it is just a "mention", then it is not significant coverage. Skyshiftertalk 13:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Vinesauce. I am inclined to say that the influence of Joel's musical career are secondary to his influence as a streamer, and the musical career notes are the main reason to separate this article out from Vinesauce. It may make sense to separate this out again in the future when/if there is more to say about it then. --~2026-31420-63 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively to Vinesauce as suggested; otherwise it would have to be deleted. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 27 May 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.

Marty Simpson (comedian)

Marty Simpson (comedian) (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 think this article presents a fairly large notability issue. The subject seems to be a relatively minor stand-up comic. This article seems to have survived speedy deletion in 2009, though it's slightly odd looking at the edit history; it may have been that a previous version was speedily deleted and the notice carried over to this version. As for notability, a Google search for the man shows me, in order:

• This article.
• Marty Simpson's website.
• Marty Simpson's YouTube Channel.
• Marty Simpson's Instagram.
• Marty Simpson's website again.
• Marty Simpson's IMDB page.
• Finally, one of Marty Simpson's shows on a streaming service called 'DryBar'.

Not one reliable secondary source among them, by my estimation.

Several of the cited sources don't actually mention Marty Simpson or his escapades (2, 4, 5), instead being very general recaps of things the article says he was involved with. While not the issue that this AfD founds on, it does suggest that the article was either written by somebody with intimate knowledge of Simpson's life or entirely fabricated. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Christianity, and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see WP:SIGCOV to satisfy the criteria of WP:COMEDIAN - he's neither had any significant roles nor made notable contributions to the field of entertainment. Of the available sources, Gospel360 doesn't even mention him, GamecockScoop is broken, and Christianpost.tv's domain is for sale. His supposed sporting accolades (many of which are unsourced) also don't make him notable as an entertainer. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 18:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Arcaist; the US News is a dead link, too. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 27 May 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.

BookMyShow

BookMyShow (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)

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookmyshow * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BookMyShow is also relevant.
  I've been meaning to look into this since it showed up on my talk page a month ago (my protection of the title was clerical, fwiw; it was Ad Orientem's action I was reinstating), but haven't - and still don't - had the time to do a proper investigation. A cursory and incomplete skim of the current references turned up plenty of WP:NEWSORGINDIA concerns (WP:TIMESOFINDIA in particular), which is to be expected; a scattering of namedrops and quotes from company representatives, without secondary analysis; and some outright press releases. The CNN piece was the best of the sources I happened to look at, though it's tangential.
  Certainly the article's in bad shape. Nobody except the company itself would miss it if half or more was just removed, and much of the rest could stand a rewrite. Undecided whether that's better done in mainspace or back in draft. —Cryptic 01:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. It fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Aneirinn (talk) 06:57, 29 May 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 mayors of Nampa, Idaho

List of mayors of Nampa, Idaho (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 notability for lists; none of the individual items are notable and the non-content can be just merged to the main article for Nampa, Idaho if its so important. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, Lists, United States of America, and Idaho. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Nampa, Idaho, perhaps as a collapsible table. --Enos733 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Comment; if the decision IS merge than I would prefer a collapsible table for clarity. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per above, and trim to one citation per person. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete we do not need a list of mayors in a city article, of all of the city articles that I have visited none of them have a section listing the majors. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Nampa is the third-largest city in the state of Idaho, with a population over 100,000. -- M2545 (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Okay? Size doesn't necessarily mean we should keep large lists of notable mayors. If someone is looking specifically for the history of officeholders in the city, then why not just merge this article to the main place people would look; I.E. the main article on Nampa. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 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.

Robert W. Kirk

Robert W. Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Every source provided focuses on the subject in the human interest angle of him being the father of a famous shooting victim. Some aren't even focused on him -- they're focused on his son and he receives passing mention. The article also conflates the idea that because the architectural firm that he works/worked for designed Trump Towers, he was involved in the design of Trump Towers. There is no evidence provided of a direct link. CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree now that I look at it; I thought when I was writing the article that his involvement in Trump Tower would be enough. ReelCosmix (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: The nomination lays out the case pretty soundly. Some of the sources cited get very close to providing SIGCOV, but never quite reach the point of establishing some sort of independent notability. Given the absence of a strong notability case, the factual issues noted in the nom, and the recent creation of the article by a relatively novice editor, I think that this article should have instead been draftified rather than taken through the AfD process. Of course, now that it's here, deletion is the best course of action. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Being "involved" in the construction of Trump Tower doesn't mean that he was a major figure in its construction; for example, a plumber or welder can be "involved" in the tower's construction. Indeed, the building was actually constructed by HRH Construction and designed by Der Scutt; it seems Kirk was a relatively minor figure in the building's construction. Aside from that, WP:NOTINHERITED would still apply. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom

ShallowC (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - his only claim to notability is that his son was murdered, but unlike his daughter-in-law, he hasn't been identified widely by the media as being a crime victim. The other assertion of notability is that he worked decades ago on the Trump Tower, which required dozens of designers and thousands of workers, but there is no contemporaneous source that I can see that would verify that claim. There's zero mention of him in the Swanke Hayden Connell Architects article. (It was constructed 1983-1985, but the only reliable source, People, was 40 years later. It's a nightmare of historiography.) Ping me if you add a rational assertion of notability and contemporary, secondary, reliable sources. I'm sorry that his son died before him; in the Jewish religion, it's the worst thing that can happen. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. YeetV4 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 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.

Dutch Reformed Church, Lady Grey

Dutch Reformed Church, Lady Grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is based on a source which is an unattributed Wikipedia mirror (gemeentegeskiedenisargief simply copies the Afrikaans article), with two other sources added to sentences even though they don't actually contain the info they supposedly reference. I moved this to draft, but this was reverted as ridiculous and nonsensical". The article creator stated on my talk "I've tried to find other sources for it but it couldn't find one. We may have to keep this one". No, if no other sources can be found, it needs to be deleted, not kept with a Wikipedia mirror as source. The other articles by the same editor with the same source will need to be checked as well. Fram (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, Geography, and South Africa. Fram (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi again @Fram. I still want this article to be kept. I've done this before with other NGK churches I have used the exact same mirror gemeentegeskiedenisargief. And I translated articles from the Afrikaans Wikipedia before. So I still don't understand why is this different. 505noscope (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn´t different, if the others have the same issue then that source needs to be removed there as well, and if no other good sources exist then we shouldn´t have these articles. A Wikipedia mirror is simply ´´never´´ an acceptable source. Fram (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The Afrikaans version of this article is similarly unsourced. It has a fair bit more information. A national biography and a self-published church history are listed as sources, but they are not cited. Even if they were, that doesn't seem like nearly enough for this church to be considered the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.

Wikipedia loops are deadly stuff. They get cited all the time, and editors don't realize it's just some cheap book that scraped Wikipedia content. They also generate false positives when trying to find citations for unsourced statements. It would be nice if we had an automated way to red flag these ersatz sources. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, last time I checked, the some of other articles on the NGK churches from the Afrikaans versions I created from, (well some of them but not all of them), didn't have any sources. In addition, recently, I've created the Dutch Reformed Church, Uitenhage article and that was fine, but somehow this isn't, like it legitimately makes no sense. And I want you guys to understand that it's not easy finding reliable sources on a certain subject. Overall, this Articles for deletion is ridiculous and I still stand by it. And again, don't take this the wrong way, I'm just giving on what I think about this. Anyways, I gotta go now. Goodbye. 505noscope (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Seems lie a pretty generic congregation, no indication of notability. If other NGK church articles are similar, they should probably also be deleted. A congregation simply being old doesn't mean it deserves an article. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Next Sri Lankan parliamentary election

Next Sri Lankan parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No specific details about this election are available yet other than the general content. WP:TOOSOON for now. Vestrian24Bio 17:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 17:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing about an actual election upcoming, this is just more a summary of Next Sri Lankan parliamentary election and Elections in Sri Lanka with little else outside 'the president could dissolve Parliament on this day, but could just not'. There's nothing here at all regarding the actual subject. Nathannah • 📮 22:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Aneirinn (talk) 07:07, 29 May 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.

Cybersecurity engineering

Cybersecurity 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)

I propose merging to security engineering because these two article subjects are essentially the same thing. Security engineering may sound slightly broader, since it more explicitly includes physical security, but in practice "cybersecurity" involves physical security because computers and servers exist in the physical world.

Note that this article was created in 2024, while security engineering was created in 2001. Another issue is that the initial version of this article was likely LLM-generated - see Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:AnnaBSP. Various editors have done some cleanup, but it still needs more work. A merge would be a good way to work through the content and salvage the useful material. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Suspected AI-generated articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 11:20, 23 May 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.

Versatone

Versatone (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 amplifier company. Article has been unsourced since its creation back in 2008. GNews produces only a single product listing. GBooks turns up two books but both are limited to passing mentions of the brand in regard to one player using them. These sources fall well-short of significant coverage. Mbinebri (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Music, and California. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: agreed with the nominator. Since this is a brand, WP:NCORP applies; none of the sources I managed to find in a search come close to the standard required by WP:CORPDEPTH. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards, this is a non-notable amp. Not by musicians'. Nevertheless, we should delete it if this is the best we can do. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:12, 24 May 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.

Database security

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

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

I propose merging because this article overlaps with information security. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge selectively to Information security as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 27 May 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.

Al-Muzahmiyya Club

Al-Muzahmiyya Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia because it fails WP:NTEAM / WP:GNG, lacks any references or sources. Dan arndt (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Dan arndt (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 14:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia as a WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:51, 26 May 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.

Najd FC

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

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

I propose redirecting to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia because fails WP:NTEAM / WP:GNG, lacks any references or sources. Dan arndt (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Dan arndt (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia and then semi-protect the redirect to avoid the obvious WP:LOUTSOCK behaviour. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 14:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia as a WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia. No major development since the article's creation. RollonLaurent (talk) 16:48, 26 May 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.

Bendhechhi Beena

Bendhechhi Beena (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 studio album. Trivial mention in all the sources that can be found. Here are the keywords of what the sources mention about the album: "debut studio album", "released on January 1, 1998" and "contains 14 tracks". Nothing else, failing significant coverage. Babin Mew (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related AfD discussions. Babin Mew (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Would it make sense to merge to the artist's page rather than deleting? M kuhner (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No I don't think 1 or 2 sentences really matters. Babin Mew (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Shreya Ghoshal discography#Studio albums, where it's engrained with plenty of details and a source, as an ATD-R. Found nothing in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:48, 28 May 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.

Dalimil Nejezchleba

Dalimil Nejezchleba (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)

Lugnuts stub; no WP:SIGCOV found, does not pass WP:GNG. Redirect to Shooting at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's 10 metre air rifle could be a good alternative for deletion, but 1995 European 300 m Rifle Championships is also an alternative and I don't know what is better. FromCzech (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Shooting, where Mr. Nejezchleba is mentioned. The precedent for Lugstubs has been to redirect to the (Country) at the (year) Olympics article even if the subject has competed in additional competitions. Frank Anchor 15:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Shooting. I would assume for most athletes, participation in an Olympics is the greatest honor of their career. --Enos733 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect: per nom as the current article dosent meet WP:GNG and lacks of independent sources. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 19:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Shooting – As suggested. Svartner (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Shooting as a viable WP:ATD Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:07, 22 May 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.

Mathematical Alphanumeric Usages

Mathematical Alphanumeric Usages (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)

List with the various letters, their unicode and what is claimed to be "Main mathematical usage". No encyclopedic relevance, the claims on the usage are highly dubious WP:OR. One can find a usage for every alphanumeric, but that does not make the entries here encyclopedic, useful or unique. As one example, every capital letter can be a matrix, every lower case letter a vector or a variable. While many subfields have preferential use of some letters, a page like this which claims to be general is higjly inappropriate. This page fails WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT at many levels. Page was PROD'd, which page creator removed without explanation, so now AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely inappropriate attempt to over-define what letters are used for. What on earth can we say about "x", the archetypal unknown quantity in algebra, but in so doing is no different to a to w, and y and z? There are obviously mathematical usages of things like bold, italic, blackboard bold, greek etc. letters to indicate different entities, and it would be very helpful to have a table of these, but it needn't be a row for every alphanumeric character. Incidentally, why would we want both this article and the equally pointless Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols? Elemimele (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  CJKPro2026 had added this table to Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols, which I just reverted (with apologies to @Drmccreedy for perhaps reverting his revert of something else in the process). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The page creator originally added this table to Blackboard bold, the addition being reverted by Jacobolus. There are already various templates, e.g. {{Mathematical symbols notation language}}, this list is not a useful addition.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely pointless. In my field (biochemistry) we tend to use specific letters fairly consistently, but when I've had to consult professional mathematicians I've found that they use whatever letters they feel like, without regard to what other people may prefer. Athel cb (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see how this is or could possibly be made to be encyclopedic. The particular font used for letters is generally speaking a stylistic choice, not one of any "hardcoded" meaning. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Very odd page. It lists a bunch of symbols and, for some of them, provides some text including that symbol which reads like a quotation but is not attributed. It claims these are the "main mathematics usage" of the symbols. This seems to be a failed attempt to do something that Wikipedia is not supposed to be doing anyway. You can't tell what the "main" use of a symbol is from a single example. Wikipedia is not the place to do a synthesis of sources and deduce the "main" use of a mathematical notation. A list of common mathematical symbols and their typical meanings would be a dictionary of mathematical symbols, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This feels like something a student or a hobbyist would do before they've read enough math books to become comfortable with notations varying all over the place. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  To illustrate the problem, the first line in the table is for the bold letter 𝐀. It says the "Main mathematics usage is", quote, "For real matrices, the conjugate transpose is just the transpose, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {A} ^{\mathrm {H} }=\mathbf {A} ^{\operatorname {T} }}$." What is this supposed to mean? Is the main meaning of 𝐀 a matrix? A real matrix? In practice, when somebody uses 𝐀 to stand for a matrix, it could be an arbitrary matrix, or they might have picked the letter 𝐀 to indicate that the matrix is self-adjoint (in which case they might use 𝐌 for an arbitrary matrix). And 𝐀 doesn't always stand for a matrix. It could be a vector potential, for example. The next line says that the main usage of 𝐁 is to stand for "an n × p matrix". But 𝐁 is often a magnetic field. The letters 𝐀 and 𝐁 could also be two arbitrary vectors in an explanation of vector algebra, and so on. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Mathematical Alphanumeric Usages. I would like to request the deletion of this "Mathematical Alphanumeric Usages" page. I mistakenly misunderstood the mathematical notation and usage when I initially created/edited it. I have now realized that mathematical symbols and letters often have multiple meanings and combinations depending on the context, rather than a single, unique definition. Given this misunderstanding, the page is no longer accurate or necessary. Thank you for your understanding, and I apologize for any confusion caused. CJKPro2026 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification here. I hope your evident curiosity about mathematics leads you to further study that you find enjoyable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete This is a nightmare to look at and requires WP:TNT but I don't even think it is notable to even attempt to bring it back in some viable way. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is so trippy. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 27 May 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.

Donald Trump's birthday

Donald Trump's birthday (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)

DO we really need an article on his birthday, is it a public holiday, or just fan cruft? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep – The article is not written as fancruft or a tribute page, but rather as a topic connected to recurring media and political coverage surrounding Donald Trump and the coincidence of his birthday with Flag Day in the United States. Wikipedia already contains articles on birthdays, observances, and date-related topics like Barack Obama Day, Grand Duke's Official Birthday, Jinnah's birthday and The Emperor's Birthday and some more. The subject is also discussed independently in news coverage, social media trends, political commentary, and public events, especially during Trump's presidencies. The overlap with Flag Day has itself been a recurring point of discussion in media reporting and public discourse. Additionally, Wikipedia hosts comparable or related articles such as Trump derangement syndrome, Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, Second inauguration of Donald Trump, and numerous culture-related spinout articles connected to Trump where the topic received standalone attention. Qshilks (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Blocked sock. ~SG5536B 12:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What makes this any different from any other president's birthday? Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Because this president thinks he is Jesus, and we have a very special holiday for the birthday of Christ, don't we? ~2026-30415-19 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I really do have suspicions that the above keep vote is speaking through an LLM; not hatting yet, but our old generated friends 'the subject is also discussed' and 'additionaly, Wikipedia hosts comparable or related articles' have made a guest appearance. Nathannah • 📮 22:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I would almost certainly agree on LLM-speak. It's basically the first thing that jumped out at me when reading that !vote. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, clear WP:TRUMPCRUFT TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 16:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Strong delete – while the subject of the article may be notable, and indeed more notable than other figures Qshilks listed who have articles for their birthdays (e.g. Mohammed Ali Jinnah), Trump's birthday is not a national holiday or something legally or culturally significant, and has little news coverage, while for example Jinnah's birthday is a widely observed national holiday, and Obama Day is celebrated and has been recognized as a holiday by the Illinois Senate and House.

OmegaAOLtalk? 15:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Trump's birthday is neither a holiday (whether national or local) nor a federal observance. The reason the coincidence briefly made the news last year is because Trump ordered a military parade to take place on Flag Day 2025, ostensibly to celebrate the Army's 250^th birthday. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Donald Trump's birthday is not notable. Any celebrations the White House organizes can be evaluated on a case by case basis. The keep vote above involves a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFF. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Just because you can say things doesn't mean it's notable or needs an article. This is absurd and unnecessary and literally none of the "Life" section is relevant. Reywas92^Talk 04:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TRUMPCRUFT, no significance as it's not an observed annual event, holiday, etc. jolielover♥talk 08:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a genuine observance, either religious or secular. We should not treat it as if it is. I don't know whether the article is LLM generated but it isn't informative. It lacks anything to show that there is a distinct encyclopaedic topic here. Anything of value here is already covered in other articles. The other birthdays in the See Also section are official observances in a way that this just isn't. Even Hitler's birthday, which was once an official observance and is still observed by exactly the type of people one might expect to observe it, doesn't get an article. (That's only a redirect.) The bar to a leader's birthday deserving its own article is high and this doesn't come close. I don't think that we even need a redirect here. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This is a very silly thing to have. I don't really think any person warrants having their birthday have an entire platform page just for that occurrence, maybe this content can be merged and summarized to his Early life section as a WP:ATD? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Clearly non-notable cruft. We are not a birthday celebration service, and Donald Trump does not need an article about his birthday. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as Trumpcruft. (Do we finally have an article on Barron Trump yet???) Carrite (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Carrite: BTW, if the question was genuine, the answer is yes. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  But there's not a page for Barron's birthday yet !!?? ~2026-30415-19 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Until recently, Barron didn't have an article at all. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

* Delete Until his birthday is celebrated (or reviled) annually, this is not a thing. Captainbeetroots (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing any signs of actual notability here, this article is built on nothing. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Dear Leader has not (yet) declared his birthday a national holiday. Until or unless it is, articles of this nature are essentially linguistic masturbation. Zaathras (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - his birthday is not generally celebrated anywhere. But another day might be. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Zaathras, Bearian, and others. ~2026-30415-19 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 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.

Luca Princiotta

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

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

The subject has played in a lot of probably-notable (although not extremely high profile) bands, but a WP:BEFORE did not uncover the kind of coverage that indicates that would pass WP:BANDMEMBER. FWIW, his current band is Hardline (band) (since 2023); he apparently played with Doro (musician) from 2008 until 2021. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Hardline (band). A brief summary of his career is appropriate. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 27 May 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.

Patrick Jahn

Patrick Jahn (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)

Jahn made two appearances in the Bundesliga and three in the 2. Bundesliga. He never played professionally or semi-professionally afterwards. (worldfootball.net profile)

A web search finds nothing resembling WP:SIGCOV. The German article doesn't have anything, either. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. There's four citations, but only three sources. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The sources are just database listings (Kicker, Transfermarkt) and short local club notices — no significant, independent coverage of him. Playing a few top-flight games no longer counts on its own since WP:NSPORT--Nq Wisit (talk) 12:42, 28 May 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.

CARMINE

CARMINE (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)

Failed WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the references are from Spotify and one press release. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and North America. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – The artist has multiple independent reviews (e.g. SLASH MUSIC) and coverage in European outlets such as Pressat, BusinessMole, and M2. He also has an upcoming live performance in Milan. While sources could be stronger, this meets the basic threshold of WP:MUSICBIO #1 (multiple non-trivial published works). Deletion seems premature this early. Viktoriacroft (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's still failed under SIGCOV and it looks a promotional article to me. He also has an upcoming live performance in Milan.: it doesn't matter whether he's have upcoming live performance or not. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – I have re-added a properly licensed image and removed the mention of the upcoming performance as suggested. The article now has cleaner sourcing with independent coverage from SLASH MUSIC and European outlets (Pressat, BusinessMole, M2). While not perfect, it meets the minimum requirements of WP:MUSICBIO for a new artist and should be given time to improve rather than deleted immediately. Viktoriacroft (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - a case of WP:TOOSOON. Also, @Viktoriacroft: you may want to declare your COI.-KH-1 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment – I have declared my COI: I work with the artist CARMINE.

The article currently has independent coverage from SLASH MUSIC, Pressat, BusinessMole, and M2. These go beyond simple press releases. While CARMINE is an emerging artist, I believe this satisfies the minimum requirements of WP:MUSICBIO #1. Deletion feels premature (WP:TOOSOON). The promotional tone has been removed. I'm happy to continue improving the article with more reliable sources if needed. Viktoriacroft (talk) Viktoriacroft (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep* – Got independent reviews and multiple releases since late 2024, so this clears the basic WP:MUSICBIO threshold for me. Deleting it now feels premature per WP:TOOSOON. I also left a few improvement suggestions on the talk page earlier today. Ballucimario (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Strike sock GPL93 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  Did you create your account just to vote? You're so suspicious. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – I've implemented the suggestions left on the talk page today (using the subject's own published sources for his move to Italy and sound evolution). The article is now more neutral and better cited while staying within BLP and SELFPUB guidelines.

I still believe the page meets the basic criteria of WP:MUSICBIO and should be kept at this early stage (WP:TOOSOON).

Viktoriacroft (talk) Viktoriacroft (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO and serves only to promote a non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:04, 26 May 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.

InLoox

InLoox (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)

Task management software with no reliable coverage. Only two links like tracxn.com in References since 2008. Never-ending string (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Germany, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:NSOFT / WP:NCORP per review of available sources. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 28 May 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.

Nico Martinez

Nico Martinez (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)

Tagged for notability years ago with little change since. I think it fails WP:GNG- sources are mostly routine coverage, firm bios, or mentions linked to cases he worked on. Couldn't find Sigcov of the man himself or anything from the last couple of years. ScottyNolan (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. ScottyNolan (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the first nomination from 2006 (that ended in deletion) was about a Jeopardy! contestant (specifically, the winner of one of its College Championships when those were still conducted). Some dot connecting (including the briefest of mentions on the bio on his employer's page, one of the existing–but not independent–sources) indicates that this actually is the same person, but the current article does not mention this in any way (and it probably isn't going to add anything to the case for notability here, especially if it didn't make the cut even 20 years ago). (No formal opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. There's zero evidence of any bar association leadership, or any other assertion of notability of an attorney. It's lacking reliable sources, and, as I've written before, "Forbes is a crust of a shell of a carcass of a formerly reliable source." Bearian (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This article does not meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NBIO and lacks significant coverage. Aneirinn (talk) 07:13, 29 May 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.

Robert Kenyon

Robert Kenyon (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:NPOL, newly elected local councillor, unsuccessful candidate for parliament and current candidate for parliament do not convey notability. Most sources on Robert Kenyon that I could find are routine coverage of his 2024 candidacy or coverage in the past three days about the by-election, so he does not meet WP:GNG either. The discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angeliki Stogia found pretty clearly that councillors running in high profile by-elections are not notable. This article should be moved to draft space, so it can be used in the case that Kenyon becomes an MP. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, United Kingdom, and England. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  It should be kept as a standalone article because:

  • The article was subject to and passed WP:AFC review
  • Per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES, local politicians aren't notable or not notable just because they are local politicians. Moreover, it states they should be seen as notable if they receive national coverage beyond what would be expected for other local politicians in their positions, which is the case for Kenyon as an elected councillor.
  • Per WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTROUTINE#Politics, routine coverage would be small articles merely listing candidates in an election, listing election results, or bare reporting of events (e.g. a candidate dropping out) without additional analysis. However, several of the references used in the article cover events other than just developments in the by-election and others also synthesise and analyse events, compare candidates and comment on strategy, and are medium-to-long in length. Therefore, they aren't just routine coverage.
  • Per WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, and WP:BASIC, a person is presumed to be notable when they have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I think everyone would agree the references used in the draft article show significant coverage of Kenyon from several reliable, independent sources. Moreover, some are secondary and focus on synthesising and analysing facts and events, not just reporting them, e.g. Kenyon (no relation), Maddox, and Allegretti.
  • Per WP:NTEMP, once a subject has received significant coverage - which Kenyon definitely has now with wide national news coverage - it does not need to receive ongoing coverage to remain notable in the future. Therefore, even if he were to lose the election and receive less coverage in the future, he would remain notable (not that we should make decisions based on predictions anyway).
  • Per WP:BLP1E, a subject can only be defined as solely notable for one event if all the following criteria are met: they're covered by RS only in the context of that event; and they are likely to remain WP:LOWPROFILE after it; and the event isn't significant. Kenyon isn't only covered in the context of the by-election (hence why this article contains other, unrelated content) and some RS (e.g. Jackson 2024) cover him in depth years before the by-election was even announced. Moreover, the by-election is definitely significant as it is highly likely to impact who the future UK prime minister/s will be. Therefore, Kenyon can't be defined as only notable for one event.
  • Per WP:Notability (electoral candidates), while most articles on electoral candidates are deleted, such articles with secondary, independent, deep, and reliable sources covering them; a candidate with high profile and "exceptional coverage"; and coverage of the candidate outside of just their candidacy are often kept rather than deleted. All of these points apply to the article on Kenyon (though he isn't just a candidate but also a sitting councillor).
  • Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, whether standalone articles are appropriate depends on whether they help readers understand their topic. Kenyon's article not only includes his running in the by-election but also details of previous elections, personal and professional background, reporting on social media use, and political views and policies, supported by multiple reliable sources. If merged into the by-election article, this material would be cut considerably, as he is one of many candidates, resulting in a significant loss of context and detail. As such, maintaining the standalone article on Kenyon preserves contextual coverage that would be lost through a merger.
  • Article content and references and wider coverage of Kenyon are all pretty comprehensive and don't solely focus on his current by-election candidacy, so it's not just a commentary on him as a candidate anyway. Moreover, there's nothing in WP:P&G that has been highlighted to support the idea that a biography article should be deleted just because its subject is currently an electoral candidate. Past AfD discussions are also in keeping with this idea. For example, the articles on then-electoral candidates Amy McGrath, Will Boyd, and Bernie Moreno were kept as standalone articles. This was largely because they were deemed to pass GNG by having having coverage in several reliable, independent, secondary sources. As I discussed above, this is also the case for Kenyon.

  13tez (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  All of the coverage being suggested as notable or in-depth relates to a single event (i.e. the by-election) which WP:BLP1E makes clear is not enough in isolation to have a page, and especially where the source of notability (i.e. the by-election page) is a far more suitable place to have some information on the subject. There is nothing inherently notable about being a candidate, and any previous coverage on being a councillor is not significant or notable enough. The guidelines give a reasonable way to interpret the policies you have listed here, and WP:NPOL in this case gives a strong framework to interpret this and is clear that a page like this doesn't meet the threshold. Similarly, WP:NTEMP is a guideline and makes clear a dependence on significant coverage (which on who or what this confers notability is a core issue) and that crucially, suitability for a standalone page is not fixed depending on the aforementioned factors. This therefore would reinforce any potential consensus here to draftify, delete, or redirect depending on suitability. It's worth noting there are 20,000 local UK councillors, many of whom have run in parliamentary general elections and by-elections - it is extremely rare for them to get a page. The recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angeliki Stogia showed once again an affirmation of this consensus. I don't see any sustained and significant coverage that demonstrates individual notability of the subject to warrant keeping the page, and it seems appropriate that routine coverage on a by-election is best suited to the page on the by-election. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hey, thanks for your thoughts.

  All of the coverage being suggested as notable or in-depth relates to a single event (i.e. the by-election)

  That's not true. For instance, the specific example I cited above (Jackson 2024) covers him in depth well before the by-election was announced.

  relates to a single event (i.e. the by-election) which WP:BLP1E makes clear is not enough in isolation to have a page

  As I discussed above, BLP1E tells us to define someone as only having notability solely from being involved in an event, RS must only have discussed them in the context of that event. As well as having RS covering him before the by-election, others also focus on other topics like his social media activity rather than his by-election candidacy. BLP1E also tells us to define someone as only having notability solely from being involved in an event, the event must be insignificant or that individual's role in the event must be insignificant or not well-documented. The by-election is significant as it is likely to impact who future UK prime ministers might be. Kenyon's role as a candidate is significant and with coverage in national news is well-documented too.

  nothing inherently notable about being a candidate

  That's true, being an electoral candidate doesn't make you notable in and of itself. But he's received significant coverage in RS, not only on him being a candidate either, hence why the article discusses more than his current candidacy. I also don't think we need to jump the gun and say that because someone is "just an elecotral candidate" they are inherently not noteworthy, especially when they have other areas of their life having signficant coverage too. Past AfD discussions are in keeping with this idea. For example, just as Stogia was turned into a redirect, the articles on then-electoral candidates Amy McGrath, Will Boyd, and Bernie Moreno were kept as standalone articles. This largely happened because they pass GNG by having coverage in several reliable, independent, secondary sources; as I've discussed and is shown by the references used in this article, this is true for Kenyon too.

  coverage on being a councillor is not significant or notable enough...NPOL in this case gives a strong framework to interpret this and is clear that a page like this doesn't meet the threshold

  As I said, from NPOL/POLITICIAN and POLOUTCOMES, local politicians aren't inherently not notable just because they are local politicians. They should also be seen as notable if they receive national coverage beyond what normal for their role, which is the case here. POLITICIAN says local politicians and electoral candidates aren't presumed to be notable but still can be if they meet GNG, which, as I explained before, is the case for Kenyon.

  NTEMP is a guideline and makes clear a dependence on significant coverage

  Sure, it's saying once notability is achieved from suitable sig cov it doesn't time out. But as I've explained, I think Kenyon is notable per GNG, NBLP, BASIC, POLITICIAN, and POLOUTCOMES.

  It's worth noting there are 20,000 local UK councillors, many of whom have run in parliamentary general elections and by-elections - it is extremely rare for them to get a page

  Sure - that's in keeping with the POLITICIAN/POLOUTCOMES idea that local politicians are notable only if they receive unusual national or international coverage, like I've talked about, which again is the case for Kenyon.

  routine coverage on a by-election

  Again, per ROUTINE and NOTROUTINE#Politics, routine coverage is small articles with bare reporting of events like listing candidates or results in an election. However, several of the references used in the article cover events other than just developments in the by-election and others also synthesise and analyse events, compare candidates and comment on strategy, and are medium-to-long in length. Therefore, they aren't just routine coverage.

  sustained and significant coverage

  Again, per NTEMP, sig coverage producing notability doesn't time out so doesn't have to be sustained (even though, again, there are RS covering him in depth before and outside the context of the by-election).

  Thanks! 13tez (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment Can I please remind you of WP:BLUDGEON? Also, I'm assuming the Jackson (2024) source you keep mentioning is this Manchester Evening News article about the potholes in Makerfield, which goes into more biographical detail because it is an interview where he talks about himself, therefore not considered an independent source for notability purposes (WP:INTERVIEW). Orange sticker (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

    Hey, hope you're doing well. Thanks for your thoughts.

    Can I please remind you of WP:BLUDGEON?

    I've not read that essay before, but I'm sorry if you feel like I'm "bludgeoning". I have only replied to other editors' comments that were themselves replies to me, which I think is reasonable. I only repeated comments where the other reply to me cited the same p&gs I did without engaging with the specifics I took from them or my points on how they apply to this article and keeping it as-is. I also think it's reasonable to retort if you say based on statement X in policy Y the article should be kept, then someone else says policy Y means it shouldn't be without commenting on statement X or your points on why and how it applies. I wasn't going to repeat anything again after that last reply anyway, as it'd just be an unproductive loop.

    the Jackson (2024) source...is an interview where he talks about himself, therefore not considered an independent source for notability purposes

    Having briefly looked at WP:IV now (which was interesting) my takeaway is that what someone says about themselves in an interview is primary while sections in an interview piece like introductions, post-interview analysis, or other statements of fact not attributed to the interviewee would be secondary, so an interview piece can be mixed (though dependent on independence reliability etc). For example, Jackson states as a fact, without quoting Kenyon, that Kenyon is a "British Army reservist Lance Corporal and plumber". So my understanding is that Jackson would be secondary there and primary when quoting Kenyon.

    Regardless, in my reply that you're replying to, I'm refuting the claim that "all of the coverage being suggested as notable or in-depth relates to a single event (i.e. the by-election)" by showing a single example of in-depth coverage that was published by an independent reliable source in 2024, well before the by-election. I wasn't arguing its primary/secondary status. Moreover, you can see another reliable, independent, secondary source from just after the by-election was announced but before Kenyon was chosen as the Reform candidate that covers him in some depth purely as a councillor rather than a candidate here.

    Thanks! 13tez (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify but also a redirect to 2026 Makerfield by-election in the meantime would be a good idea, agree fails WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E. Orange sticker (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, I think a redirect would be helpful as well. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify or redirect per nom. The subject clearly fails WP:NPOL and is not notable for running as a candidate in a by-election - any coverage on this shows notability on the single event which WP:BLP1E is clear on. Other run of the mill coverage on being a local councillor is not usually considered significant, hence why local politicians have a very high threshold for notability which is not demonstrated here. Should they be elected as an MP, the page can be revived and if not, the page can remain off the Wikipedia mainspace. If this wasn't a draftify discussion, I would be strongly supporting a vote for delete (or redirect) here. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify I made my views clear on the by-election talk page. I do not support full deletion as I accept that the article 'may' by required in 4 weeks time - depending on the outcome of the by-election. But as things stand, I do not see sufficient grounds to have a stand alone article on Mr Kenyon, for all the reasons I have previously mentioned and some of the reasons given by others. I think 13tez has made a helpful contribution by producing a draft article that might be needed, if so it serves as a very helpful starting point. But, as I say, it will not become clear until 19th June whether the article is needed at all. On that basis, I would respectully encourage 13tez to channel their positivity, energy and efforts elsewhere until we have the by-election result.WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify or delete. This happens every by-election, someone rushes to create an article for a candidate and it comes to AfD. Candidates are clearly not notable under WP:NPOL. Kenyon has insufficient notability on any other criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify per others above, also support the redirect. JSwift49 02:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify per the reasons other editors have given above. Fails WP:NPOL as Robert Kenyon is not notable enough for being a candidate in a by-election. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify per the reasons given by others above, but a redirect would be useful. Harfarhs (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify Fails WP:NPOL with Robert Kenyon not being notable other than for being a candidate in an upcoming by-election. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  He may win the by election, and other Local politicians do have Wikipedia pages.

  Its in the Public interest to have this source of information on this candidate. ~2026-31337-43 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Can we draftify this now as per WP:SNOW? Bondegezou (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Wait for the exact same reason I argued the same for Angeliki Stogia— I feel that the duty of providing unbiased equal coverage of all major candidates in notable elections (given WP:NPOV) outweighs other factors at WP:GNG. However given the outcome at that AfD discussion, I think there needs to be a wider RfC on modifying WP:NPOL in such a manner and it can't be tackled via an individual discussion like this one. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NTEMP is clear that notability is not temporary. It would be going against basic Wikipedia principles to consider candidate articles temporarily notable while an election is going on. Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would be happy to either modify WP:NPOL such that all significant candidates for office are included in it permanently, or to modify WP:NTEMP, as I do think WP:NPOV is the more fundamental founding policy so if modifying other policies helps better satisfy NPOV, so be it. Would require a wider RfC discussion to resolve though. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's up to you, but I suspect your RfCs will crash and burn! Bondegezou (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Not about me, this topic has come up repeatedly in AfD discussions over the last several years- and there was even widespread media coverage in 2020 of the Theresa Greenfield AfD and Wikipedia's over-focus on notability policy to the detriment of other policy concerns. I'd like to see a broad centralized discussion to fix this issue rather than having it be relitigated over and over again but would have to figure out 1) the best possible changes to policy and 2) how to attract a wide variety of editors. Might also be good to have a discussion about preparing for such an RfC before formally starting it.

  Intriguingly this is only an issue on enwiki- I have seen quite a few articles on politicians where several other languages of Wikipedia have good articles on them but the English-language article has repeatedly been deleted. It is clear that enwiki is an outlier in this regard. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Candidate notability from earlier this year. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 23:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  No such discussion can override WP:NPOV, which explicitly says representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic and this policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Even if a discussion comes to editor consensus that some reliably-sourced content about candidates in an election should be covered more than other reliably-sourced content about candidates, that consensus doesn't actually mean anything because NPOV overrules it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV is not being overridden. Candidates and their views are covered in election articles. There is no need for standalone articles on candidates as well. These points have been hashed out many times in discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Not only is NPOV not being overridden here, it would actually be completely going against NPOV and extremely biased to give pages to all political candidates because it would give undue weight and visibility to individuals who other than for the by-election, wouldn't receive any attention and therefore would have disproportionate coverage and the suggestion of enduring notability when this clearly isn't the case. Andy Burnham has a Wikipedia page because he is a significant political figure as an ex cabinet minister and current mayor of Manchester. His page exists in spite of the by election not because of it. If people want info about the by-election, we have a dedicated wiki page for this - this is where people can easily find reliable reporting and candidate information on e.g. Robert Kenyon, especially when WP:BLP1E unambiguously supports this as best practice. By creating pages for all candidates who don't have notability beyond a single event like this by-election and some who are from smaller or niche parties, Wiki would effectively be becoming promotional and advertising for the candidates and giving undue weight - does anyone who pays the deposit and gets a couple of features in a local newspaper now get a Wikipedia page? If not, who from Wiki gets to judge who is credible? This is extremely subjective and can change very quickly - UK by-elections have famously seen upsets and large swings from insurgent candidates/parties. Again, why should Wiki be making judgements on this, especially when we can just have all of this information in the appropriate page (i.e. the by election). It's vital we maintain our impartiality and protect these standards which uphold Wiki's neutrality and NPOV, not water this down and risk allowing an avalanche of political advertisements. Greenleader(2) (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with all these points, well said. Orange sticker (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I would just like to make clear that Andy Burham's Cabinet career is not relevant to his WP:Notability, which he obtained on the day he became an MP. Harfarhs (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comments: The key issue for me is, as Pretzel Quetzal (talk) stated at the top of this AfD, Robert Kenyon fails WP:NPOL, because a newly elected local councillor, unsuccessful candidate for parliament and current candidate for parliament do not convey notability. If one or two editors do not like the guidelines at WP:NPOL and think the guidelines should be changed, then changes can be proposed at a RfC discussion, which may take some time, but in the meantime I feel this Kenyon article should be moved to draft space. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Draftify as per various others above. Policy is clear here. LukeSurl ^t c 16:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

> Policy is clear here

I agree- WP:NPOV says "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."– i.e. WP:NPOV explicitly takes priority over WP:GNG and WP:NPOL– and it also says "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."– i.e. proportionately reporting all reliable media coverage rather than unduly favouring one candidate with more Wikipedia article coverage over another candidate. As far as I'm concerned it's pretty straightforward that deletion or draftification cannot possibly be justified for that reason. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The many !votes that he doesn't pass WP:NPOL as a local councillor miss the fact that there is absolutely no question that he WP:NBASIC (which precedes WP:NPOL in the same NBLP guideline) - receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This NBASIC requirement is undoubtedly met just from the first page of a google news search of his name:

• BBC
• The Guardian
• The Times
• Financial Times
• The Telegraph

There are dozens more.

This is also not WP:BLP1E - the coverage involves in-depth looks at subjects such as whether he voted for Brexit, his social media history, his military record, his views on Russia and Ukraine, and his current campaign. The interest in him may be driven by his current political campaign, but the coverage of him - which is what determines what he's notable for - is extending far beyond that one event. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

All of those pieces of coverage solely relate to his candidacy in the by-election. The coverage is all recent (i.e. not sustained or long-term) and explicitly links all of this to the by-election - if he wasn't running, they wouldn't be writing these articles. This therefore does highlight that his notability is clearly restricted to the event itself and doesn't show any notability outside of it. Greenleader(2) (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

All of those pieces of coverage solely relate to his candidacy in the by-election. That's simply not the case. A piece reporting on the announcement of his candidacy, or on things he's done while campaigning might relate solely to his candidacy. A piece about tweets he wrote about Carole Vorderman, or whether he supported Brexit, or over-stated his military service relate - in addition to his candidacy - to those things. By being a candidate in a by-election, he's made himself a public figure and therefore lots is being published about his life, not just about what he's been doing since a by-election was called. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Various things have been said about various aspects of him and his life, but they have been said only because of his by-election candidacy. Therefore WP:BLP1E applies. Harfarhs (talk) 21:35, 28 May 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.

Baylen Levine

Baylen Levine (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)

Baylen Levine doesn't pass General notability SatnaamIN (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: This may be a mistaken nomination, WP:NACADEMIC has no relation to this article. -- HungryHighway🛣️ 09:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  corrected SatnaamIN (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, Internet, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, too much trivial churnalism and lack of substantial, reliable references. Geschichte (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This article lacks significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Aneirinn (talk) 07:17, 29 May 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.

Virgin Life Care

Virgin Life Care (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)

Company does not appear to exist, and website is not active Husskeyy (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - per nomination. GeographicAccountant (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The article relies only on primary sources. Aneirinn (talk) 07:18, 29 May 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.

Abhijeet Dipke

Abhijeet Dipke (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 of what the coverage is comes through Cockroach Janta Party, from the past few days. I don't think it clears up WP:1E limitations yet. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 07:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 07:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maharashtra. jolielover♥talk 07:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – I believe the article should be kept because the subject appears to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not just passing mentions or affiliated/social-media coverage. The article can be improved with better sourcing rather than deleted.

Pulsar2018 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC) — Pulsar2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep ~2026-30473-63 (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-30473-63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I think this should be deleted, because it is nonsensical and weird and doesn't make any sense to have. The person is a mere speculator in the world of politics and has no real power whatsoever, and his party is a parody at best. TheDukeOfAbersford (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – Most coverage is recent, tied primarily to Cockroach Janta Party rather than the individual himself, and does not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Coverage appears concentrated in a short viral news cycle. A mention within the Cockroach Janta Party article would likely be more appropriate at this stage. Crushedoreos (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I think the person has become a big point of attention in society, be it mainstream news media or social media. I myself do not subscribe to the ideologies of Abhijeet, however I do not think his article should get deleted. Obviously let scenario unfold and we can expand the article in future. Shakya2007 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Only notable for founding Cockroach Janata Party which has its own page. Zalaraz (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. ~2026-30661-49 (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-30661-49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  I dont think we should delete it! He has news pages because of his Cockroach Party! And the LLM part can be edited so its human ~2026-28508-79 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. It's has got a lot of coverage in very short time. A$ianeditorz (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep EduExplorer47 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Per which criteria are you asking for a speedy keep? — Raihanur (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Possible COI, definite WP:NPOL Adsaeds (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC) — Adsaeds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment : Possible conflict starter like WP vs ANI battle Adsaeds (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep definitely meets WP:AUTHOR Sarim Wani (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party Charlie (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Most reliable coverage has been recent and tied with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The article fails WP:NPOL and should be deleted. Though, I also wouldn't mind having it be made a redirect to the article on the CJP. — EarthDude (Talk) 03:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The argument regarding WP:NPOL remains unanswered. Koshuri ^(あ!) 05:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party:: It has coverage right now, but mainly due to the viral meme (One Event). It's WP:TOOSOON to create. Time will tell if this is going to be relevant or not. Right now it's too early. Lordofhunter (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party: The subject does meet basic requirements with independent sources for a mention on Wikipedia, but he is only known for one currently happening event, so I think we should put his role in a section of the Cockroach Janta Party article, then later if he gets more traction or is known for multiple notable events, we can eventually make his a separate article. Nanomi Sakura 08 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep notable BBC – Veritasphere (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing more than a passing mention here. Zalaraz (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/who-is-abhijeet-dipke-the-boston-educated-founder-of-cockroach-janata-party-101779346291274.html Veritasphere (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly attracting more and more traction as time passes by. Kaeez06 (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: He meets GNG and WP:BASIC. See: this, this, this, this, this, this... I don't think he is a full politician (yet) to apply WP:NPOL.. — Raihanur (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Much of this is still via Cockroach Party. As @Nanomi Sakura 08 says above according to what I said in the nomination, the subject still doesn't move beyond WP:1E limitations, even though the coverage through the party coverage is huge, but still its connected, not directly about him, and extensive. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 17:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party: His notability is basically CPJ. — Longewal (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party as per Longewal and Nanomi Sakura 08. R. M. Holda - (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party per WP:BLP1E. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party: Fails WP:NBIO and WP:1E criteria. CJP is the only notability found. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets GNG

Pagers (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party per WP:NOPAGE. Wareon (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party. This is a classic case where WP:PAGEDECIDE is to be applied. Having sources doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a standalone page; this can be comfortably accommodated under the larger article. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Not significant enough for seperate Wikipedia article. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

*Merge with Cockroach Janta Party: Fails WP:NBIO and WP:1E criteria. The subject appears to be notable only in connection with the Cockroach Janta Party, with no significant independent coverage outside of CJP-related context. Draconhs (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 10:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Cockroach Janta Party. Wanderer (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with the CJP article per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as the article's notability is dependent on the foundation of Cockroach Janata Party, failing notability for biographies. Babin Mew (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Cockroach Janta Party. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kalpesh Manna 2002 You can't vote twice. Earlier you had voted for a delete and now for a merge. Please strike out any one of your opinions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:36, 28 May 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.

Hobart Rivulet Platypus

Hobart Rivulet Platypus (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)

Pure AI creation. AI signs include un-human vocab ("pivotal moment", "practical steps", "notable example", "organization dedicated") and sentences ("These visits aim to teach children about the importance of platypus conservation, the unique biology of the species, and how they can contribute to protecting their local environment."). UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Can this be speedied as an LLM creation? Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I considered speedy, but G15 is only for unreviewed LLM creations and has significant restrictions. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep There is no proof whatsoever that it is a LLM creation as a whole; the bullet-point structure of the last paragraph is sketchy, but the nomination is honestly baffling: since when "pivotal moment", "organization dedicated" and "notable example" are "un-human vocabulary"? (I use for sure the latter two expressions regularly; am I a LLM?). The topic seems notable, given the sources, therefore I see no reason to delete.--cyclopia^speak! 15:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  While any of the phrases in isolation may be commonly written by humans, the density of them in the section on The Platypus Guardian reads to me strongly of WP:AISIGNS. In addition to the vocab the nominator pointed out, the section also avoids basic copulatives. Also, the entire section contains close paraphrasing of parts of the National Seniors Australia source. Phrases like "leading him to realize he must take action to protect the animals he had come to love" and "where he finds solace in the natural world during a difficult period in his life" are very LLM-like, and the former is not supported by any source.

  There are also issues with improper citations. For example, the "Platycam Network" does not appear in any of the sources in the Key activities and projects section, but rather the Platypus Party source. The line on the mural incorrectly states "the group" commissioned the mural, which the source does not support; the sentence, "The artwork serves as a visual reminder of the wildlife that lives alongside the city's residents, and the need to care for urban waterways" is also unsupported by any source and seems like WP:AILEGACY. One of the examples illustrating "Seize it, Snip it, Bin it!"—plastic rings—is not mentioned in any source.

  Taken together, the language and the strange and inaccurate synthesis of sources looks exactly like the output of an LLM.  —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  This reeks of witchhunting to me. The very WP:AISIGNS page states clearly that it's very hard to detect AI-generated text reliably. I agree the mistakes in source attribution are somehow worrying, but I disagree that it is such a clear-cut case to warrant deletion. These problems can also be fixed by editing. cyclopia^speak! 09:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  My assessment was based on GPT Zero's report on the article, which indicated 100% AI written. The specific call outs were the ones GPT Zero called out as the most indicative. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Quoting WP:AISIGNS: "Do not solely rely on artificial intelligence content detection tools (such as GPTZero). While they perform better than random chance, these tools have non-trivial error rates." (In fairness, that is a charitable assessment. As far as I know, AI detection tools are utter garbage) cyclopia^speak! 19:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOLLM; see my response to cyclopia above. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is essentially a collection of AI-generated template-like statements, with no reliable sources or meaningful news coverage provided to establish notability or verify the claims.--Hopkinkse (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: This is an odd article. PeteWalsh13, did you write this article based off of the organization's press releases, or LLM/ChatGPT, or using your own research? Bearian (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:NOLLM. A bunch of WP:AILEGACY, WP:SUPERFICIAL, and the usual contrived sentence structures (the "pivotal" sentence in the nom is a good example of this). --gurkubondinn 01:00, 23 May 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.

Artificial intelligence in mental health

Artificial intelligence in mental health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Applications of artificial intelligence because this article is very clearly AI slop, considering the amount of rule-of-threes usage and promotional language. I would advocate for a merge, but that would just shift the problem. GrinningIodize (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Artificial intelligence, and Suspected AI-generated articles. GrinningIodize (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete before redirecting—I'd rather we delete the article and only then create a redirect, in order not to preserve the article history. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  I mean, the history isn't necessarily harmful, it's just that the current revision should ideally be 100% manmade. GrinningIodize (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Notable topic. A cursory look on Google Scholar shows that it is a massively notable subject with whole reviews and books published about it. There is no proof that the text was written with LLMs, apart maybe for the bullet-point paragraphs that reek indeed of GPT; they can be removed and rewritten. --cyclopia^speak! 08:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's chock-full of buzzwords and rants endlessly about "ethics" and "discrimination". I think that it's pretty obviously LLM-slop. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Still, we have no real evidence if it's someone writing badly or a LLM. It's notoriously difficult to spot LLM writing accurately (even Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing#Caveats admits it). cyclopia^speak! 09:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  If someone writes so badly that their writing is indistinguishable from LLM slop, it should be deleted anyway. GrinningIodize (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  If it can be solved by editing, our deletion policy says we do not delete. cyclopia^speak! 09:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, it can be solved by editing, but I don't see anyone doing that in this case, and this AfD has already gone on for a long time. I think that at this point Wikipedia:Ignore all rules begins to become relevant here, and I would say that the rule you're citing absolutely prevents the improvement and maintenance of the Wikipedia. GrinningIodize (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Do you call a few days "a long time"? There is no deadline. We're not hurrying to release a product. Wikipedia is an eternal work-in-progress since a quarter of a century. If an article is imperfect, we make it better, or we wait for someone to make it better. We don't slash things just because they're not already right. That is the essence of this project. That is the reason for that policy (which is built on years of consensus). If you believe articles that are not perfectly compliant should be deleted right away, this is not the project you're looking for. cyclopia^speak! 09:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  True, but if we just let AI slop sit and wait for someone to fix it forever, then soon there will be more LLM-generated articles than human-generated ones, and I doubt that anyone will be able to rewrite those articles fast enough to prevent the Wikipedia becoming a wasteland. GrinningIodize (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  The point is: we do not know if it's AI slop. We were starting from your comment: «If someone writes so badly that their writing is indistinguishable from LLM slop...» If we start to shoot articles on sight because someone has a vague vibe it could be LLM Wikipedia will also be a wasteland. cyclopia^speak! 14:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  How do you know that the article's not AI slop? Judging from the article contents, it's more likely than not to be wrotte by an LLM. The explanation that a human wrote this immense pile of text is certainly a possibility, but it would be much more surprising, and the article can always be recreated later if we're wrong. GrinningIodize (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  • "wrotte" was meant to be "written" in the above comment. GrinningIodize (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • How do you know that the article's not AI slop? The burden of proof is on who thinks it's written by LLM. Otherwise we should delete every article unless we have positive proof it has been human written.
  • Judging from the article contents, it's more likely than not to be wrotte by an LLM. Humans rarely detect LLM content better than random chance. There's data about it, I just added the relevant papers in WP:AISIGNS.
  • and the article can always be recreated later if we're wrong. And then someone would delete it again accusing it of being LLM written, and so on, and so on. No, thanks. I believe the right course of action is to stay on the safe side unless there is significant evidence beyond some stylistic aspects.

  cyclopia^speak! 15:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Well, you're entitled to your opinions. GrinningIodize (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  If definitive proof that an article is LLM-generated is required, then we are essentially agreeing to allow people to use LLMs on Wikipedia. This is against policy and against consensus. Community consensus is that content which meets enough of the WP:AISIGNS should be removed. The editor who made this page has a total of 47 edits. Sustainable urban agriculture, another article created by the editor, also contains many AISIGNS. The editor in question has multiple articles which have already been deleted which I can't review. In one bizarre case, they seemingly tried to decline an IP's AFC draft without being an AFC reviewer or actually specifying what article they "declined". Lovelyfurball (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Can you point me specifically where do policy and consensus explicitly say that it's enough to have a hunch based on an advice page of a wikiproject (from WP:AISIGNS: "This page is not a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community") to delete an article? Nobody here is "essentially agreeing to allow people to use LLMs on Wikipedia", but we should have good evidence that LLMs have been used. What has been provided here is not good evidence. Given that scientific studies show that, on average, humans are very bad at discriminating LLMs better than random chance, we should be more cautious. cyclopia^speak! 18:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Even if the article is deleted under mistaken grounds, it can always undergo deletion review later on and get restored. GrinningIodize (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Deletion review is mostly about procedural errors in the AfD, and it's not an excuse to justify hasty decisions during the AfD. cyclopia^speak! 07:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  It isn't just the bullet points; there are several other WP:AISIGNS in the article. See my !vote below. Examples from the article: "This growth indicates a growing interest" (WP:AITREND), "AI specialists have thus highlighted ethical standards" (WP:AITREND again), the aforementioned WP:AILISTs, "Computer vision tools have been explored for their" (WP:AIPUFFERY). These are just a few examples, the page is filled to the brim with other tells. Lovelyfurball (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  It could be, it could be not. It's chasing ghosts. We have no way to know with any reasonable certainty that such a text has been written by a LLM. I'd like to see some statistics on such signs; both automated tools and humans are notoriously bad at detecting LLM texts with any accuracy. Which is understandable, given that LLM mimic human language. cyclopia^speak! 09:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think that the difference between text written by you or me and a machine that produces odd-sounding slop is pretty obvious. For example, this article says "ethical" 20 times and "bias" 31 times; compare this to the article on Mental health, which says "ethical" 1 time (in a citation) and "bias" 0 times. No human rants on and on about ethics and biases in an article about an unrelated topic, AI's involvement in mental health. GrinningIodize (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  As a science and medical writer, I guarantee I know people who rant constantly about ethics and biases :) That said: you might think it is "pretty obvious" but data consistently show that humans are bad at detecting AI writing unless you start relying on a wide consensus between heavy LLM users. I do not feel comfortable with relying only on vague stylistic signs to flag an article for deletion as LLM generated. cyclopia^speak! 09:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  For the record, I interact with LLM tools on a regular basis, and my verdict for this article is AI slop. GrinningIodize (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  For the record, I interact with several LLM tools on a regular basis as well, and with human writing too (I'm a science writer and former academic), and my verdict is: maybe it is AI slop but I cannot be sure. cyclopia^speak! 07:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The content is (almost) entirely LLM slop that cannot be used as the basis for a freshly written article. "Mental health" is not mentioned at Applications of artificial intelligence, which makes that a terrible redirect target. The large number of links in articles appears to be an artifact of the appearance on several templates such as {{Artificial intelligence}} and {{Artificial intelligence navbox}}. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Applications of artificial intelligence. The topic is best handled as a specialized subsection within the broader overview article.--Hopkinkse (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  Why would we redirect to a page that does not cover the topic? Redirects like this often get deleted at WP:RFD. As there are links to this in articles, WP:RETURNTORED would apply to the redirect that gets created. Since there is no content that can be merged, which appears to be where consensus is headed, we should just delete this. It is a bad practice and a poor use of editor time for AfD to create redirects that are likely to no survive at RfD, especially the intentional creation of a redirect that satisfies an explicit deletion reason for redirects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:LLM violation without prejudice against a possible redirect in the future. Since there isn't a section in Applications of artificial intelligence, it doesn't make sense to redirect it there yet. If a section does get made on the topic there, a redirect can be made at that point. The article contains many classic LLM tells. The article was originally given the LLM tag by Gnomingstuff, who is very experienced in detecting AI-generated content on Wikipedia. The bullet point lists, excessive bolding, superficial analysis, emphasis on "broader trends", and semi-promotional tone are all classic WP:AISIGNS. Lovelyfurball (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable topic. It definitely needs to be rewritten but that can be done without deleting the page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  This is a good case for WP:TNT. Having an article which is likely almost entirely a WP:LLM violation up is bad for the project. WP:LLM violations should be removed. If someone wants to write an article on this topic in the future, they can do so, but keeping AI generated articles up in the hope that someone will re-write them is a bad idea. People can use LLMs to generate articles significantly faster than experienced editors can do full re-writes. Lovelyfurball (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Deleting notable and editable content only because of a hunch it could be LLM-derived is what is really bad. I am not debating the LLM policy, if an editor admits LLM usage or there are candid obvious signs (e.g. someone pastes a LLM text including caps such as "Here is a Wikipedia article on xyz as you asked me.") then it's clear what to do. But relying on vague stylistic signs to raze articles on notable topics reeks of witchhunting in my opinion. cyclopia^speak! 10:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Deleting content which meets several signs of AI use has been endorsed in multiple recent RFCs. There is consensus that, since people can produce LLM written articles much faster than editors can re-write them, articles which are likely wholly AI-generated should be deleted. An editor who would like to tackle this topic can begin a new article on it. See: § RfC on presumptive removal of AI-generated content, which promoted WP:LLMPROD to a guideline (the specific guideline is not relevant here, but the broader consensus in the RFC is). Lovelyfurball (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  The point is "likely". I do not see enough proof that this article has been "likely" been LLM-generated. Mere stylistc suspicion is not enough in my book, since it is very, very hard to detect LLM content reliably. cyclopia^speak! 13:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  The signs in this article are pretty clear to me, even if I can't be 100% sure. The tonal issues here are very typical of 2023 LLM outputs, which is when the article was created. In a comment above, I gave a few examples from the article of WP:AITELLS. If the requirement to remove LLM-generated content is an indisputable admission of LLM use or a WP:G15-worthy mistake, then we may as well allow LLM use on Wikipedia (and there is clear consensus and a policy against this). I understand the concerns about potentially removing human-written content, but fighting the flood is impossible if we wait for the LLM user to come back and admit it. The principle that the community agreed upon in the WP:LLMPROD RFC is that content which is likely (not only indisputably) LLM-generated should be removed. Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I am sure they are pretty clear to you. That is the point. A subjective "LLM vibe" is not significant evidence for me. I understand what the community agreed to, my problem is with the threshold for "likely" we are debating here. The same WP:AITELLS page states: «Do not rely too much on your own judgment. While research on humans' abilities to detect AI-generated text is limited, a 2025 preprint shows that heavy users of LLMs can correctly determine whether an article was generated by AI about 90% of the time, which means that if you are an expert user of LLMs and you tag 10 pages as being AI-generated, you've probably made one false positive.» If "fighting the flood" means removing a 10% of false positives (and that's for expert LLM-spotters!), including notable articles that can be improved by editing, then there is a problem; and it's not the LLM flood. cyclopia^speak! 15:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I suppose we simply disagree on which is worse: removing some false positives or allowing an LLM-generated article to stay up. I consider allowing an LLM-generated article to remain on the site to be worse, but your position is also reasonable. In the end, community consensus needs to be followed, and in this case there is consensus against keeping articles which are likely LLM-generated. Lovelyfurball (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  We disagree on what is worse, that is sure. However I do not debate that there is consensus against keeping articles which are likely LLM-generated, I am simply skeptic when the "likely" assessment is based on vague and subjective stylistic impressions. They can be hints that can be used to investigate deeper (e.g. checking the article history, editor contributions etc.) but alone they have very little value on deciding if an article is LLM written or not. cyclopia^speak! 18:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep article should be copyedited, but otherwise it's obviously a notable topic. Skyshiftertalk 18:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think we would probably want a major rewrite at the very least. The article doesn't really have poor grammar or spelling. GrinningIodize (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it's also important to note that the main issue with LLM-generated articles is verifiability, not grammar and spelling. Since LLMs basically always attach sources to claims they don't verify, copy-editing will not fix much. Lovelyfurball (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  There's arguably also some inherent value in an encyclopedia for and by humans, but that's subjective. GrinningIodize (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect without prejudice to recreation by someone who wants to do with without LLM use. This is not a well-written article and much of the content and sources can generically apply to healthcare applications rather than specifically mental health. It has been written by multiple users (inluding a student) though and is not uniformly poor, so someone could salvage some of it to a fresh page. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify. Large parts of the article are LLM-generated, but I also see some decent sources (if they haven't been hallucinated). We all seem to agree that the article needs a lot of work, though I don't see why we should start from 0. Moving it out of article space removes LLM content and gives editors time to work on it, without pressure. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, AI slop. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 29 May 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.

Arachthos Festival

Arachthos Festival (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 festival. GamerPro64 05:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related AfD discussions. GamerPro64 05:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Travel and tourism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage or even passing mentions in reliable sources in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. No other language's article exists for translation, even Greek. I did my own searches as required, and found nothing on Google News, Scholar, or Books. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 27 May 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.

Elavarasi P. Jayakanth

Elavarasi P. Jayakanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about an entrepreneur with less significance. Coverage is routine. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• not to be deleted Elavarasi P. Jayakanth

Dear talk, Why did you tag the article for deletion? A woman who struggled and achieved something without much support in this male-centric society deserves recognition. She has a clear track record of achievements and public visibility as well. I kindly request you to reconsider and remove the deletion tag from the article. Thank you.05:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafdesam (talk • contribs)

• Delete - there's no reasonable assertion of notability, and an appeal to pity doesn't make her notable. Millions of women have become entrepreneurs. It's not even new! In the early 20th century, 122 years ago, my great-grandmother was widowed, raised a bunch of kids (sadly having to bury one or two), and ran a successful business in the working class South Bronx for over 30 years, until the Great Depression. I don't see significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete this article please. The subject plainly has no indication of notability. Aneirinn (talk) 07:46, 29 May 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.

Yusuf Abdullahi Tsamage

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

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG for this young footballer. The article is possible AI-generated too. JTtheOG (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. JTtheOG (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:06, 25 May 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.

Zhemchuzhnaya

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

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

This is a railway station. That is what the article declares it to be, that is what can be seen at the location. The population reported for this location (2 in 2010, 3 in 2002) is also consistent with the live-in staff of a railway station. There is no evidence that anything but a railway station has ever been at this location.

The RU Wiki article includes the claim that a Soviet airship crashed 19km away from the station, but this clearly does not help the notability of the location since the crash did not happen at the station.

The appropriate notability standard for a railway station is WP:NTRAINSTATION which this clearly fails.

The article is padded out with irrelevant sourcing that also does not help the notability of the location. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: A railway stop, with two people living there, north of the Arctic Circle, is not notable. The crash happening 20 km away could be notable, this blip on the map isn't. Heck, the source citations are longer than the article; we don't have enough to show notability for this place. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - No evidence of notability under WP:NTRAINSTATION. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG. Added sources: 3 books, of which 2 are encyclopedias. You can also add information about the last observation of the airship SSSR-V6 OSOAVIAKhIM here (newspaper clipping). Insider (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reaffirm delete vote. These sources simply repeat the same information (I.e., that this is a railway station with a population consistent with a single railway station) without providing significant coverage. For example one is simply a list of postal addresses, but having a postal-address does not confer notability (else every building with one in a world would be notable). A one-sentence mention in a regional dictionary saying "railway station of the Okt. railway. Situated 39 km south of the town of Kandalaksha. Until 1938 – part of Karelia" is not WP:SIGCOV and thus cannot sustain a GNG pass. The other reference (Dobrohot) is the same - a bare mention - but based on this is also a Wiki-like WP:SPS project. Changes in the region within whose jurisdiction the railway station fell is not coverage of the railway station. Coverage of the air-crash is again just a bare mention of site, and not significant coverage of the site. FOARP (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Postal addresses? Apparently you're talking about an administrative division? This is important for the rural locality. The station (ru:Жемчужная (платформа)) itself has long been abolished, and now it is replaced by a railway platform. The rural settlement with type station (ru:Жемчужная (станция)) has existed for more than 110 years, and currently consists of about 7 courtyards, the platform Zhemchuzhnaya, and a telecommunications tower.This is not WP:SPS, see editorial staff of this project below (for example Doctor of Historical Sciences, Prof. I. F. Ushakov), also see this page at National Library of Russia. Well, in general, for a better understanding. Stations in Russia are not given the status of a settlement just like that. For example, three neighboring stations to the south and two to the north are not rural localities. And the stations have been serviced for a long time by visiting employees who are not part of the population. I don't really understand why, for example, WP:NSETTLEMENT doesn't apply here. Insider (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  "Rural settlement with type station" is a train station. Yes, a postal address database does nothing but show that a location has an address. "about 7 courtyards" - are courtyards automatically notable?

  WP:GEOLAND/WP:NSETTLEMENT explicitly rules out census tracts - that is, units used only for census-counting - which this is an example of.

  An encyclopaedia with no publisher, instead published by the people who wrote it (cf. their discussion of not having the money to publish it), is an WP:SPS. Even if it weren't, the coverage in it doesn't rise to WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, as in the case of Mayak Tyuvagubsky, you are mistaken. It is not census tract, it is legally recognized place, as required by WP:NSETTLEMENT. The number of yards just shows that this is no different from other settlements. There is the train station Zhemchuzhnaya (ru:Жемчужная (платформа)), and there is a populated place (ru:Жемчужная (станция)) that includes train station. See also d:Q24258416, d:Q1782540 and d:Q27062006 for different with d:Q55488. For example also see the station Mamontovo, Rubtsovsky District, Altai Krai (over 500 people in the best years). The status is identical. There are many sources indicating that this is a populated place, but so far none have been cited for the fact that this is a census tract.

  I have already written about the encyclopedia (and there is also a second one) here. I repeat. It is electronic version of the book Кольский Север : энцикл. очерки / [сост. и общ. ред.: А. С. Лоханов]. — Мурманск : Доброхот, 2012. — 502 с.. The authors are listed on the main page of the website (25 PhDs in different fields of knowledge, journalists, art historians, and architects). This is definitely an reputable source. It's not freely editable website. It's just that it's based on a wiki engine.

  I also added three newspaper articles about this place. Two of them (Брысов А. Жемчужная: На малой станции сойду... // Октябрьская магистраль. - 1986. - 19 ноября; Капустин А. Жемчужная // Нива. - 1994. - 18 августа), as the name suggests, are dedicated only to it and nothing else. Insider (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Insider:, could you describe the contents of the two newspaper sources that you've added? I'm having trouble locating them online. –dlthewave ☎ 23:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Dlthewave I couldn't find them on the Internet. They can be obtained from the Murmansk State Regional Universal Scientific Library (proof). Insider (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Insider you are adding articles that by your own admission you haven't even read, as sourcing, based simply on titles including a common Russian word (Жемчу́жная) meaning "pearl". FOARP (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  @FOARP If you open this page (at the official website of the Murmansk State Regional Universal Scientific Library and signed by chief bibliographer of the Center for Local History M. A. Oreshko), you will see that the articles are dedicated to this place. Not abstract word (Жемчу́жная) meaning "pearl". Insider (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  The response appears to be an automated output of everything even mentioning the term, and the mentions don’t appear to be about this location unless you believe Soviet partisans were operating hundreds of miles behind Soviet lines during WW2. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  You're mistaken again. This is not an automatic issue. The book talks about the WW1 and the Russian Civil War, not WW2. 1919 year. Insider (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with FOARP, the details about administrative changes don't contribute to notability. The zeppelin crash isn't directly related either, I would hesitate to even mention it in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 05:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Also to the above, for the legally recognized place, see:
  • Реестр зарегистрированных в АГКГН географических названий населённых пунктов на 24.02.2026 Мурманская область by Rosreestr: type of object: ж.-д.ст.(нп) = train station (populated place). In doc only populated places, this is in contrast to the full registry of geo objects (where there are train station (stop) 0039455 and populated place 0039456). Also Будасси and Капраево are train stations, but not populated place.
  • Общероссийский классификатор территорий муниципальных образований (classifier): Населенные пункты, входящие в состав муниципальных образований Мурманской области = Populated places that are part of the municipalities of the Murmansk region: 47 530 000 174 - 7 - ж/д ст Жемчужная
  • Административно-территориальное устройство Мурманской области: [Населенные пункты, входящие в состав административно-территориальных единиц = Populated places that are part of administrative divisions]: 12.18. - 47 202 000 017 - сельский - железнодорожная станция - Жемчужная.

Insider (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"train station (populated place)" is a train station. This is exactly the same as the GNIS system which also registered many locations as "populated places". The fact that it's indexed on a number of different tables is neither here nor there, nor is the inconsistent application of terminology.

And we note that despite the splurge of supposed references, that you have not read to see whether they actually say anything about this location, rather than about the Russian word "pearl". Running the partisan references through machine translation I just see passing references to this location as exactly what it was: a railway station.

For example: "As of July 1, 1920, members of the party cells of the stations of Kandalaksha, Zhemchuzhnaya, and Kovda were registered with the Murmansk Regional Committee of the RCP(b), while the villages of Kandalaksha, Kovda, Knyazhaya Guba, and the Kovda timber mills were registered with the Kemsky Committee." Which strongly indicates that this was not a village, but a railway station.

Or in another example: "The Prince-Killers also set out that night, but we have no information about their military actions. Only from the accounts of some surviving partisans do we know that the railway tracks were damaged in several places, as were the switches at Knyazhaya and Zhemchuzhnaya stations". Again, we're talking about a railway station, mentioned in passing. FOARP (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"train station (populated place)" is a populated place with status train station (the same historical status as a selo, derevnya, stanitsa, posyolok, aul, etc). I'll repeat myself. For example also see the station Mamontovo, Rubtsovsky District, Altai Krai (over 500 people in the best years). The status is identical. That's why these documents make no distinctions between them, only their status. But all of these are legally recognized populated places. Some of these stations gradually changed their status and became towns (Uzlovaya). Others, on the contrary, abandoned. There are currently 7 courtyards, in which 2 people are registered.

Regarding the issue of sources, I see no reason not to trust the chief bibliographer of the scientific library. Only articles related to the subject are listed. This is evident from at least two of them having an digital version. This is also evident from the article titles. Two of them are dedicated directly to the station, others at least have mentions. Also 2 encyclopedias, other books. Fits the WP:GNG. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here are 5 materials dedicated directly to the place. Insider (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

They need to not be passing mentions, but these clearly are since they only mention the train station (and that is exactly what it is) in lists of trains stations. FOARP (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as a legally recognized settlement. The GNG also appears to be met. The suggestion that the titles of the listed works are not about the station, but about something related to pearls, has close to zero chance of being true. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  A “settlement” with a recorded population of 2 people, and no evidence at all that substantially more than that has ever lived there. FOARP (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Still, this is legally recognized and meets [GEOLAND. The population of Kandalaksha, the district center, dropped from 54,080 in 1989 to 28,438 in 2023, so it is not unreasonable to assume that this place had more people living there in the past. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see at WP:NSETTLEMENT mentioning the population as a criterion. On the contrary it says: "even if their population is very low". Insider (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  It states that it has to be an settlement. It provides a separate classification for railway stations (WP:NTRAINSTATION) and for individual facilities (WP:NBUILD).

  A classification that is in reality just a train station, that has a population consistent with the workforce of a train station, that is universally described as a train station - not as a village or other settlement even in 1920 - is a train station.

  What kind of "settlement" has a population that can, and almost certain does, live in a single building?

  Also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averinsky where these same arguments were made and it closed as delete. FOARP (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, you're wrong again, they don't live in the same building. You can view the available photos on Wikimedia Commons (File:Станция Жемчужная.jpg, File:Станция Жемчужная с составом.jpg - only the northern part of the settlement), satellite images, and other photos.

  Averinsky is a bad example, if only because it is a khutor (≈ hamlet) with one building. Although it is an legally recognized settlement. There's more than one building here (I counted 7 residential buildings). Compare it with the legally recognized settlement - station Pezhma. Then suggest deleting the article "Mamontovo", it has the same status. Insider (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Here is another example of a settlement with the same status (train station as legally recognized settlement): Ozoyrki (Озёрки) (4,325 people in 2009). Insider (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Insider. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 29 May 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.

Ollama

Ollama (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 tool with no sign of notability. The article lists some unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChippyTechGH (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChippyTechGH What did you find in your search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating? —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and Software. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, based on the combination of the lack of sources here and the rejection of Draft:Ollama. No objections if this is merged into the draft there for draftification. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes when I did a google search for it I couldn't find any reliable sources from places like NYT or Reuters. ChippyTechGH (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: a recent article on ZDNet extolling Ollama properties led to search, which led to this article. As a trusted source, Wikipedia adds to the larger discussion about the tool. PMChefalo (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: it is notable: is one of the most used tools to locally run LLMs (see for example here). We have articles about software that is far less notable than Ollama is. LM Studio also doesn't have a Wikipedia article: only llama.cpp has. When you look on the Internet about how to run a local LLM, Ollama is probably the first option you will find. Wikipedia can't just ignore the fact that locally-run LLMs also exist. Coverage on open source and locally run LLMs was very poor in Wikipedia until very recently: now, it has improved, and I think that deleting articles about it, once they are created, isn't the way to go (in fact, about a month ago, when I saw Ollama article was lacking, I thought about creating it myself; I didn't because I hadn't the time and patience to create it from scratch at that moment).

The lack of reliable sources is a good argument, but when a tool is so widely used, I'm almost sure that reliable sources do exist (NYT or Reuters may not cover it, but there should be enough technical publications or research papers talking about it: for example, in 2001 you wouldn't find a mention to Linux in NYT, but it deserved an article anyway). MGeog2022 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

An example of a reliable source about Ollama, found by just performing a quick search on Google. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Just look here to see some sources... MGeog2022 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Notable enough. In addition to above, is an example of a reliable news outlet which has an article covering the software. Jcuhfehl (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The Ars Technica story is what tipped the scales for me. That tells me it's starting to get more mainstream coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 12:01, 23 May 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.

Robert Matney

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

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

He has held a number of different roles but unclear if any are notable. Minimal third party coverage. KH-1 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Technology, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - No third-party coverage by reliable sources. I found a few PR articles but that's about it. In addition, the article is poorly written so best to delete. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 14:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced for a BLP. There is also no clear indication of notability. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as there is neither a credible claim of notability nor in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 11:58, 28 May 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.

Susanne Pollatschek

Susanne Pollatschek (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:ANYBIO / WP:NACTOR, lacks any sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Scotland. Dan arndt (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as agreed by previous AfD. Alternatively, delete as unsourced BLP. PamD 06:36, 21 May 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.

Mariam Yahaya

Mariam Yahaya (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)

Child athlete with no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Also, the article is possibly AI-generated. JTtheOG (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nigeria. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:06, 25 May 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.

Telecommunications in Sudan

Telecommunications in Sudan (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)

Mostly uncited, promotional, violation of WP:NPOV. AZenit3 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Technology, Internet, and Sudan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Can you please elaborate? In my eyes the article does not seem promotional or an NPOV violation. Jumpytoo Talk 03:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Keep as I don't see the issues raised by nominator, and "Telecommunications in [Country[" is a topic that is generally always notable. Jumpytoo Talk 19:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Jumpytoo. Dletion reasons seem fixable. Inconceivable that telecommunications of a large country would be non-notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:35, 21 May 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.

Annette Böckler

Annette Böckler (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 BLP has been unsourced for 13 years and would be a WP:BLPPROD candidate if not for the single link to her personal website. It survived AfD in 2006 as no-consensus under an older, broader definition of WP:NPROF and based on unsourced statements of being very influential in German liberal Judaism. She doesn't appear to meet NPROF now, and I cannot find any RS coverage that would verify her as an influential public figure or otherwise passing GNG. de:Annette M. Böckler cites two sources, but both are non-independent and so would still not bring her closer to passing GNG. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Judaism, and Germany. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom. Doesn't seem too different from a normal academic. Jay-GH 21:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - it appears that she's never gotten tenure anywhere, and we have almost never kept articles of assistant professors. Have the relevant WikiProjects been notified? Bearian (talk) 21:45, 26 May 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.

Jacques-Jules Bouffil

Jacques-Jules Bouffil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose draftifying because it does not seem notable for an encyclopaedia. It needs more notable sources, and it seems to be somewhat promotional. Also, creator has a history of non-notable promotional BLP creations. AZenit3 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep It just need to be improved not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliusijidola (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Juliusijidola:

  Draftifying means it gets moved to the Draftspace. If you would like to learn more, read Wikipedia:Drafts, but basically:

  It's not deletion. Instead, it is moved somewhere where it can be improved into an article for the encyclopaedia. AZenit3 (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't see how this article can be considered promotional at all. As for notability, it is a rather old topic, so less sourcing can be expected: that said, there's a listing in Frédéric de La Grandville's Dictionnaire biographique des élèves et aspirants du Conservatoire de musique de Paris (1795-1815), published by the CNRS, a biographical dissertation for a DMA, a biographical sketch in Millard M. Laing's 1952 dissertation Anton Reicha's Quintets for Flute, Oboe, Clarinet, Horn, and Bassoon, a few mentions in the Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet, and then the entries in Weston's books (More Clarinet Virtuosi of the Past and Yesterday's Clarinettists: a Sequel). I think we get by on GNG with this, but from the DMA dissertation I can already see there's more stuff in French if needed. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. We could do without this sort of poor nomination. I don't know whether "more notable sources" means "an additional number of notable sources" or "sources of greater notability". Neither meaning has bearing on how we assess an topic's notability because sources are not required (or even expected) to be notable. The article is not promotional. The article on French Wikipedia has more, referenced, content. Thincat (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. A simple Google Book search gives evidence of notability of the subject person. --SatnaamIN (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on what's available and to avoid feeding our critics. The minimum effort for a deceased person is to look for foreign language articles. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've tagged for improvement. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 26 May 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.

John Miller Srodes

John Miller Srodes (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 do not believe that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. The extent of coverage in the Hearn book (where Srodes' name is spelled as "Shrodes") listed in the references is a few passing mentions regarding his actions when Ellet went ashore to accept the surrender of Memphis (that he went ashore, threatened to fire on the city, sent the Marines ashore, and then left a guard at the post office).

The other source in the article, the America's Greatest Pioneer Family book written by I. T. Taylor can be found in its full text here; Mr. Taylor indicates that his mother was a member of the Shrodes/Srodes family and that he was writing the book as a sort of family history project as a tribute to her. Given the circumstances, I don't seee how the Taylor book can be considered independent for notability purposes. Searching doesn't bring up anything else which looks promising; I think it is telling that the only current places that link to this article are a surname dab page and a see also link at our article for Col. Ellet. Hog Farm _Talk 22:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Pennsylvania. Hog Farm _Talk 22:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. What little coverage is out there on this individual does not appear to be independent in nature, and what little notable and verifiable information about this individual exists could probably be covered adequately under the USS Lioness page. nf utvol (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete It appears that the only source is the publication of entries from his diary in a book about his family which, as NOM says, is not independent. The other source listed here does not mention him, and is about battles in which he supposedly participated. Essentially, the entire article (and it is a nice bit of writing) is original research. This article is from 2006, before the establishment of a more detailed policy for GNG. Lamona (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this is such a long-standing article of a nineteenth century person, let's give this discussion another week to see if more sources appear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. How long an article's been here should not equate to notability. Intothatdarkness 13:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. But note: before 1876, the majority of States lacked mandatory schooling; thus standardized spelling was optional. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete very little coverage and almost or all is not significant, and the notability alone is not found here.

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.

John Suiter

John Suiter (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)

Poorly sourced (two sources, not enough coverage) of a BLP. Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete By being an elected member of a state legislature, albeit the largest US state legislature, the topic passes the letter of WP:NPOL. The only coverage I've found is this local news article, which amusingly begins with "John Suiter’s first day was anything but unusual." Realistically, it does not seem sufficient coverage exists to support the existence of an article. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  To add, I am aware that Suiter meets WP:NPOL, but it's useful to remember that this topic is only presumed notable. I've looked on Google, Google News, and TWL, and have not been able to find coverage beyond the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript interview. Have others had better luck in finding coverage of Suiter? Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - I have added more references - WP:NPOL. Moondragon21 (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! My google account has learned that I like Wikipedia, so I essentially only get instances where this name appears in Wikipedia. Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 17:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:NPOL. --SatnaamIN (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:NPOL. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:NPOL. Suiter is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels", states that WP:NPOL is met for Suiter. The Monadnock Ledger-Transcript article is a really good source that shows WP:GNG. There's also this news source that gives out more reliable information of Suiter. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. As far as NPOL is concerned, it's about as settled a guideline that we have. There are also many specific examples of keeping New Hampshire legislators. If it's going to change, such as when we decided that a school superintendent was not notable, then it would need a very large number of !votes and a clear consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 26 May 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.

Afzal Upal

Afzal Upal (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)