Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 23

Parizeau Affair

Parizeau Affair (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 think this passes WP:NEVENT, it's all coverage from around the time, nothing since. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related AfD discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• The article's Talk Page says it is about Politics. Going through the article, I don't think it passes NPOL criteria or EVENT criteria as nominated. So Delete is my opinion.--Zne0us Phenix (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

MERGE as discussed bellow.--Zne0us Phenix (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to 2003 Quebec general election#Parizeau Affair as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 15:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to 2003 Quebec general election, with a short subsection if editors think the material is due. The incident is covered by reliable sources from the campaign, but the available sourcing mainly treats it as a short-lived election controversy rather than a standalone event with sustained independent coverage under WP:NEVENT. Sparks19923 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to 2003 Quebec general election and maybe mention in 1995_Quebec_referendum#Quebec. Not much of a standalone event; more of an anecdote. Don't redirect, because of the likely confusion with Parizeau's original money + ethnic vote controversy. TheFeds 23:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Merge to 2003 Quebec general election not a major standalone event. Don't redirect as per @TheFeds above.

  Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 00:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  We cannot merge and then not redirect for copyright reasons. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with 2003 Quebec general election: More appropriate to be merged than have a stand alone article. Tuesden (talk) 10:23, 30 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.

Vanavani Matriculation Higher Secondary School

Vanavani Matriculation Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. The only WP:GREL source "The Hindu" does not satisfy the WP:SIGCOV requirement. WP:MILL Indian school. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Found no SIGCOV containing sources in additional searches. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 03:30, 30 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.

Scripted sequence

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

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

The article is largely unsourced WP:OR, and the idea of what may be considered a "scripted sequence" within video games is highly subjective. Can overlap with cutscene or quick-time event to the point there is no obvious redirect target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as nothing to merge or redirect. If this is a WP:NEOLOGISM, it needs evidence as such, and there isn't any sourcing provided that it's a definable term. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Delete per above. Reads similar to an essay as is. IgelRM (talk) 21:01, 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.

Political ideologies in the United States

Political ideologies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is largely redundant, and introduced topics are covered by the conservatism and liberalism in the United States pages. The title implies a taxonomy of ideologies but delivers causal analysis. It is vague, inserts opinions for facts, and makes claims that are not true. I cannot see how copy editing will resolve the issues and recommend it for deletion. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as primary author. Not my best work, but this is a notable topic. See WP:SUMMARY and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I am glad you responded, can you explain to me what the article is actually for? I might be inclined to change my mind if I understand what exactly you are arguing for. What does the PEW research poll image have to do with Political ideologies in the United States? I started out just trying to do copy editing on the article and by the time I got past the lead section I could not understand the connection between the title of the article and the content of the article. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as a ridiculous nomination. Obviously a notable topic, and it only passed GA four years ago. This is a non-starter. MediaKyle (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable topic, GA-quality article. The notion that we'd delete such an article is absurd. Jfire (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The issues mentioned in the nomination statement are able to be solved by ordinary editing. The topic is obviously notable. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as a thorough article on a notable topic backed by 200 sources and a Good Article review. Alansohn (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• The political ideologies page has too many issues to list in full, so I am outlining general issues I see and ask other editors to verify my findings. The main issues appear to be POV fork, redundancy, LEAD, and Content Fork issues.
  
• POV fork The article applies the modern definitions of terms conservativism and liberalism inconsistently across the entire history of the United States. For example, it frames the creation of the constitutional republic as "the establishment of a liberal government." There are also issues with definition compression and over simplification throughout every section of this article.
  
• Content Fork / Redundancy These problems appear in each subsection under the History section. There is not enough unique insight or new material in these sections to warrant creating a version outside of the main pages, which already covers each topic in greater depth and neutrality (e.g. Gilded age, Reconstruction, American revolution, Jacksonian democracy, and major party history articles). For example, referring to the half-breeds as the "liberal half-breeds" only appears in this article. It does not appear on the Half-breed page, nor on the Guilded Age page. This highlights the risk of having duplicate historical articles in multiple locations.
  
• Lead issues The lead claims fiscal conservatism developed as a reaction to the Cold War, when the concept predates the United States into colonial times and possibly older under different names (fiscal prudence). The lead also contains interpretive synthesis that looks like "no original research" as conclusions in the final paragraph are stated that I cannot verify.

Dd3r1n0 (talk) 04:53, 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.

Adelstein–Lew controversy

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

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, and borders on a violation of WP:BLP.

1. WP:NOTNEWS: The subject matter is a single poker hand and the resulting social media fallout. While it received significant coverage in 2022, that coverage was "news of the day" and has not translated into long-term encyclopedic significance.
2. WP:POVFORK: This article functions as a POV fork. The relevant, verifiable details of the incident are already covered (or should be covered) in the biographies of the individuals involved. Maintaining a standalone page for a "controversy" that resulted in no legal findings or structural changes to the industry is an unnecessary emphasis on tabloid-style reporting.
3. BLP Concerns: Given that the investigation found no evidence of cheating, the existence of a standalone article titled "Controversy" places undue weight on unproven allegations against a living person.
4. WP:MERGE: If any historical value remains, it is best handled via a Merge into Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade Lew, where the incident can be contextualized within their broader careers rather than standing alone as a "cheating" allegation page.

Banalnasal (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC) — Banalnasal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Formatted for readability, no content change. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 24 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: if the merge alternative to deletion is pursued, it must be considered that Garrett Adelstein has an article but Robbi Jade Lew does not. (No further opinion on that or anything else.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Games-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Only a few observations, at this time, to just bring into relief the technical discrepancies in the nomination. (Disclosure: I happen to be the creator of the article.)

First, we do not invoke near-violations of policy as cause for deletion. That the text "borders on a violation of" WP:BLP, or any other policy or even a guideline, for that matter, is simply not a valid argument. The nomination, nonetheless, on that "border[ing]", goes on to claim that the article places "undue weight on unproven allegations against a living person." Yet, the text goes at extensive length to present the many and significant nuances in "easily the most controversial poker hand of all time," as professionals in the poker field have characterized it. Even though the text correctly does not pass judgment, the facts, the opinions, and the research as laid down facilitate the reader's assessment, without "undue weight" on either side.

Second, it is claimed that the article's subject violates WP:GNG and, at the same time, in the very next sentence moreover, that it has "received significant coverage." Both these statements cannot be true.

Third, the article's subject is dismissed as "news of the day", i.e. as something without lasting significance, a claim based on WP:NOTNEWS in combination with WP:NEVENT. Yet, the text already satisfies the latter's criteria for WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE. Respectively, the coverage,as evidenced by the cited sourcing, has been not just "significant" but also, trivially evidently "in-depth", and "international" as the proffered, worldwide notability testifies. (Note: a very small sample of extant sources has been cited, methinks rightly.) As to WP:PERSISTENCE, the dismissal of the subject as being "news of the day" is rebutted by sources still examining and observing the issues raised beyond more than two years after 2022. (Note: I have not made any special effort to update sourcing, since I believe no more is needed. But this is not a technical observation.)

Fourth, the subject on the merits of what's already in the text cannot be said to violate the other WP:NEVENT criterion, that of having a lasting effect. Briefly, the issues of misogyny, casino surveillance, game integrity, and player comportment have been explicitly raised, and the related weaknesses have been, per the competent entities, e.g. the casinos, the subject of inquests and the cause for in-depth reviews of game rules & conditions.

Lastly, the proposal to Merge into the articles on the two main protagonists falls immediately afoul of the fact that only one of them has a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. It is unwise to use AI to create AfD rationales. This contradictory mess illustrates why. No comment for now on whether the article meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:NEVENT due to the number and quality of sources, the sustained coverage over time, and the consensus of experts regarding the impact and importance of the event. The Gnome's comment above outlines effectively rebuts the nomination rationale. Jfire (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Article explains the importance of the event in a clear fashion and brings in appropriate sources. Also the nomination appears incoherent. Making a page for the amateur player involved, solely for this one event, would be clearly inferior to having a page about the event (WP:ONEEVENT). And the claim that it is a fork is strange: you cannot fork a page that does not exist. M kuhner (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy close without prejudice to a new one being filed - It is very well documented that LLMs talk out of their printed circuitboard arse when it comes to Wikipedia policies. As such, any Articles for Deletion debate that starts with an AI-written rationale is inherently tainted, not least because the AI (as explained above by The Gnome) is trying to have it both ways because it legitimately cannot understand how Wikipedia policies are applied in practice. If there is a valid AfD debate to be had here, it needs to be brought by someone without relying on the short-cut-long-delay that is LLM use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 23:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominator is subject to an ANI for improper behavior related to this AFD. Borgenland (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I still cannot comprehend, let alone understand, the extreme nature of the nominator's reaction to the (relatively few) articles I created or humbly tried to improve. (The nominator's pertinent words are here. It appears I'm "corrupt[ing]" Wikipedia.) From all the traces of the nominator's activities here it appears they came across something I wrote, became upset, checked my edit history, checked my contributions, and became even more upset with another one, to the point they nominated it for deletion. So far, a bit strange, but not extraordinary. What is confounding is that instead of starting a dialogue, e.g. with the Main Corruptor, i.e. me, they chose to resort to A.I. and create an AfD nomination. Quite extreme, by any measure. And, for me, disturbing. -The Gnome (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as the sources demonstrate, this poker hand has been covered in-depth in the reliable and verifiable sources that are needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Meets NEVENT. And (of course) meets WP:N by a wide margin. Hobit (talk) 20:39, 30 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 Calgary Transit Bus Terminals

List of Calgary Transit Bus Terminals (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 WP:SIGCOV at all about any of these city bus stops in any secondary sources. Article is cited only to Calgary Transit's own website. No indication that this can't be adequately covered in a paragraph or two at Calgary Transit. Minimal pageviews. See also WP:BUSOUTCOMES. 162 etc. (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, Lists, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with the nominator, no other secondary sources.--TitCrisse (t•c) 22:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC).

Delete: I’m the original creator of the article and agree with the deletion. It is not relevant and is not needed in any way. James Denesuk (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and others, also WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete:Due to lack of secondary sources that is even already raised here. Fails, WP:NLIST PhantomVorteX (Talk) 16:06, 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.

Isaac Yacob

Isaac Yacob (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)

Struggling to meet SIGCOV with this one despite source searches. Feel he may reach notability in the future, but not currently. Porterjoh (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Basketball, and Indiana. Porterjoh (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify as the best WP:ATD option in these circumstances where there might be future notability that isn't there yet. Alansohn (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify as per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify - Per WP:ATD, _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify: Per above.. Maybe notable in future. Tuesden (talk) 16:50, 30 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.

Zandvoort Formula 2 round

Zandvoort Formula 2 round (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 establish notability, nor does there seem to be any for a race that only ran as part of the championship for two years. There are individual articles for each of the races which honestly seems to be enough. Porterjoh (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Motorsport, and Netherlands. Porterjoh (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Delete Hardly any source other than one who is far from a third party source. Hardly any sources available for it too. BuffaloTaro (talk) 18:49, 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.

2026 BWF World Championships qualification

2026 BWF World Championships qualification (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 because: This article about the 2026 BWF World Championships has been draftified once and so may not be unilaterally draftified again. It has zero independent references and so does not establish notability.

• Redirect to 2026 BWF World Championships, as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Delhi. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• REDIRECT to 2026_BWF_World_Championships#Qualifiers. Doesn't qualify for a standalone page.--Zne0us Phenix (talk) 02:22, 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.

Italian Disability Rights Authority

Italian Disability Rights Authority (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)

Surprisingly, this entity does not appear to have received any coverage in the Italian press. I have found two mentions of the organisation in the websites of Italian disability charities, but I don't think advocacy sources are sufficient to prove notability. Something of a damning indictment of the organisation's effectiveness, but I can't see this as passing WP:GNG Boynamedsue (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

found this journal article under a different translation of the name, and this news article about proposals it made in 2025. Try "Garante disabilità" instead of the full name in your search engine of choice. Morwen (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

also this, this, this and so on... Zimbonte (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Although there are some mentions of it in government and news articles, none are specifically about the organization itself. English WP does not have an article for "disability rights in Italy" which is where this would logically be placed. Lamona (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there any way to move this to Disability rights in Italy? Bearian (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 14:11, 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.

MSC Ultras

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

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

Not notable and fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I'm not accusing a COI, but the creator has a long history of editing only pages about this club. I know this might be irrelevant to the AfD, but I'm just saying. — Raihanur (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Football, and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why delete this page?

It contributes to important ongoing information of Bangladesh Domestic Football.

And sources added from various top tier newspapers of Bangladesh like Prothom Alo, Daily Star. Just because I edit only this club post that doesn't mean it not valuable. How many editors regularly edit in Wikipedia from Bangladesh, and how many of them contribute in domestic football! Such an absurd reason to delete this page.

Similar kind of Page called 'Bashundhara Kings Ultras' are also present in Wikipedia. Why delete this one? Ramis Wasi (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ramis Wasi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... What happened to other articles should not be discussed in a deletion discussion. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Raihanur (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It has also gotten significant media coverage throughout the sports community and media of Bangladesh!

If anyone follows football in Bangladesh they'll definitely agree to this! Ramis Wasi (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ramis Wasi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

No, it did not receive significant media coverage. The only two sources I can find mention it briefly (this and this), with each providing just a passing line, which clearly isn't significant. — Raihanur (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

How about This and This! This event was covered all the sports news media. I'm showing these two only because it has clearly mentioned MSC Ultras name, other media only mentioned fans of Mohammedan Sporting Club.If you want to provide more sources we can provide! Ramis Wasi (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

MSC Ultras Tifo this was widely covered in television sports media Ramis Wasi (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

We can provide more sources! Ramis Wasi (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (nom): Though I think a redirect to Mohammedan SC (Dhaka)#Supporters won't be a bad idea, as per WP:ATD-R... — Raihanur (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  What will it need to keep the page as it is now? Ramis Wasi (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mohammedan SC (Dhaka)#Supporters as suggested above. GiantSnowman 14:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion has not ended Ramis Wasi (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mohammedan SC (Dhaka)#Supporters seems like a good alternative to deletion. Fcstmani (talk) 08:46, 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.

Badminton at the 2013 Palarong Pambansa

Badminton at the 2013 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Scoria (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Badminton, and Philippines. Scoria (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Good catch, consists entirely of non-notable players playing in a non-notable tournament failing GNG and SIGCOV in reliable sources.zglph^•talk• 07:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The problem is there is no proper sourcing for the list of winners no matter how nationally prestigious the Palarong Pambansa is as a grassroots youth national games.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:15, 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.

Wisconsin Institute for Discovery

Wisconsin Institute for Discovery (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)

Redundant article to Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Wisconsin. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery: per nomination. GrinningIodize (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery as the two are the same topic. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 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.

Golyevka

Golyevka (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)

There is nothing at this location. There is also nothing with this name for miles around that I was able to find. The location is a lonely stand of trees next to a dirt road. There is no sign that anyone ever lived at this location - no houses nor ruins can be seen there.

Even if this place exists, it is, as the RU Wikipedia article describes, a "personal subsidiary farm", which is to say an individual farm. The reported population is also consistent with that. The appropriate notability standard for a farm is WP:NCORP or WP:NBUILDING which this palpably fails. Alternatively it was some kind of temporary structure or camp, but again this would not be notable.

The way this article is padded out with algorithmically-generated content is also concerning. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NBUILDING. –dlthewave ☎ 18:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• leteeNot a notable location. SenshiSun (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
• See this sattelite map (buildings are visible on it, there are 13 of them in total). Keep by WP:NSETTLEMENT as populated, legally recognized place. Insider (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's a farm, that's what the it's classification is, that's what the population is consistent with, that's what you see in those pictures. Evidently temporary in nature also, since it's no longer there. FOARP (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Classified by whom? By you? It's not farm, it is деревня = village. 13 buildings with courtyards now (more before). The village has not gone anywhere and still exists to this day. See map. Insider (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  It’s registered as a “personal subsidiary farm” in the Russian cadastral survey, “village” is just one possible translation of the term Derevnya, which can also be translated simply as “rural locality” - you may recall the Iranian Abadi case (which can also be translated as “village”) where the locations all turned out to be shops, farms, factories, pumps and so-forth.

Whilst we’re at it, the Gmaps satellite photos are dated 2026 whilst the Yandex ones are clearly older than that - there is nothing there, the structures were clearly temporary. FOARP (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Where did you see this (“personal subsidiary farm”) on this page? There's no such thing there. Just a village = "деревня". This is an ordinary village (not shops, farms, factories, pumps and so-forth), of which there are thousands. The legally recognized place is confirmed also by other sources:

• Реестр зарегистрированных в АГКГН географических названий населённых пунктов на 27.02.2023 Курская область (Реестры ГКГН) by Rosreestr: 0630053 | Гольевка | деревня. In doc only populated places.
• Общероссийский классификатор территорий муниципальных образований: Населенные пункты, входящие в состав муниципальных образований Курской области: 38 624 448 000 - д Гольевка. Alternative page.
• Постановление Губернатора Курской области от 6 ноября 2008 г. № 489 Об утверждении реестра административно-территориальных единиц и населенных пунктов Курской области: Приложение № 4. Реестр сельских населенных пунктов Курской области : д Гольевка | Любачанский сельсовет Медвенского района
• Also, according to the Classifier of addresses in Russia, there are 13 residential houses in the place.

You mistaken again. Some of the houses are visible on Google maps: [maps.app.goo.gl/3KLDHYfkjqfFbtut8 1], [maps.app.goo.gl/TqkejTnYKag9Ud8R6 2], [maps.app.goo.gl/DvdGzryhCenrdnFA7 3]. Others are either hidden under the crowns of garden trees or destroyed. Map with village in 1930-s (Гольевский). Temporarily for 100 years, right? With this approach, everything on the Earth is temporary. Insider (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The map labels it with the smaller font, not the larger font used for actual villages - a named location. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – It's a little hard to know what to say here. Should this database entry exist as a standalone article? No, almost certainly not, but then again I wouldn't have created the 92 articles in Category:Rural localities in Medvensky District. Plausibly this should be covered in whatever its село is, or possibly a wider administrative unit. (We have Medvensky District, which is probably too big, but not Vyshnereutchansky Selsoviet, where I would happily redirect it.) I don't see what good deleting this database entry would do without coming to a broader consensus on how to handle other деревня's. Presumably there will be some big RfC/fight about these articles in the next few years; I have no opinion on this article until that fight happens. Suriname0 (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you almost completely. We have thousands of articles about settlements in Russia (and beyond). It doesn't make sense to delete one arbitrary article. Especially about the settlement that is about 100 years old. Here we must first reach a consensus and change WP:NSETTLEMENT. For example, enter a population criterion in it (outside WP:GNG). As for the first part, Selsoviets, this is a more artificial, often modified and abolished entity. Even for this village, until 2019 was part of the Lyubachansky Selsoviet (Любачанский сельсовет). In the Arkhangelsk Oblast, for example, the Kholmogorsky District (423 legally recognized populated places) has not contained selsoviets since 2022. And there are a lot of such districts. Insider (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I see, selsoviets may not be the right level of granularity then. Tentatively, List of rural localities in Medvensky District might be a reasonable future destination for storing this database info. Suriname0 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Just as a note: there aren't a lot of articles on Russian municipalities on en-wiki, whether they are still called selsoviet, or сельское поселение, or whatever other terms exist (I personally dislike the translation "rural settlement", because they usually include multiple settlements or localities). But there are some, e.g. Kikerinsky Rural Settlement. I guess that could be one way to handle localities on which there isn't much info, to mention them in articles on municipalities. It is possible to find fairly detailed site plans for "rural settlements" (municipalities) published by their local administrations online, which can provide a decent base for such articles. -- Kapulakone (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• There a few things worth unpacking here. One is the idea that, because the Russian census counted population for this location, then at some point in the past it must have been a substantial village. As this paper points out, this is not true - the Russian and Soviet authorities have always maintained counts for places having only temporary or no population, though the number of these places has increased, even in the 1979 census they numbered in the thousands. As the paper explains, having these places registered as settlements enables their later exploitation by local authorities and thus they are motivated to do it, and some are essentially collections of dachas, the Russian equivalent of a holiday-park. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 30 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.

Quibim

Quibim (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)

Promotional page for a non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP. Sources are limited to:

• Affiliated sources from the company, its investors and collaborators (, , , , )
• WP:CORPTRIV, mostly in press release-driven WP:TRADES publications (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )
• Primary sources and databases (, )
• Trivial mentions (, , )

I found no qualifying sources in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Artificial intelligence, and Spain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Not so easy to evaluate if to check only USA or UK media, however there is the Guardian coverage too. I looked further and found several independent, reliable Spanish-language sources not currently in the article that together meet WP:NCORP. The sourcing exists, the article just doesn't use it.

Cinco Días, Santiago Millán, 18 July 2025

Major Spanish financial daily (PRISA group); Millán is a senior staff tech reporter. Covers much more than the NHS contract: the full investor lineup including CDTI Innovación through the Innvierte programme, the company's history through Lanzadera, current deployment footprint, staffing and offices, and a breakdown of the QP-Prostate, QP-Brain, QP-Liver and QP-Insights products. Direct quotes are minimal, most of it is editor-written.

El Español Reportajes, Samuel Domínguez, 13 January 2025

Long-form profile covering the technology, market position and clinical applications in depth. Two earlier El Español articles by different reporters (Climent 2020, Aznar 2024) make this a multi-year beat across three different sections of the outlet.

El Confidencial, Víctor Romero, 9 July 2025

Tier 1 Spanish digital-native national daily, treated as RS at WP:RSN for current affairs and business reporting. Romero is a named Valencia-desk staff reporter. He adds his own framing on top of the contract news: UK prostate cancer epidemiology, NHS early-detection targets, a health-equity angle on racial diagnostic disparities, a cost-benefit dimension, and an inline cross-reference to the outlet's own NHS structural-crisis coverage ("No es el Brexit, es el NHS"). The article situates the company within UK public-health policy.

Expansión, Mar Benavente, 11 November 2025

Tier 1 Spanish financial daily (Unidad Editorial). Long-form feature on six Spanish biotechs, with Quibim given its own dedicated section under the subheading "Un nuevo patrón de imagen médica". Industry-analyst voices throughout from sources unrelated to the company (Jordi Xiol, Ysios Capital; Maite Fibla, Ship2B Ventures; McKinsey BioEquity Europe 2024; Bankinter Foundation's Observatorio de Startups España 2025). Being picked for this short-list shows the outlet sees the company as one of the representative Spanish biotechs. Together with the 28 January 2025 Expansión article, this is sustained coverage at the outlet.

Zaki et al., 2022, Neuroradiology

Independent peer-reviewed head-to-head of Quibim Precision Brain Atrophy against Quantib ND in memory-clinic imaging. Authors at Erasmus MC Rotterdam; no Quibim co-authors. The COI statement is explicit: "Quantib B.V. and QUIBIM contributed technical services to the study; they had no involvement in the study design, analysis, or interpretation of results." Independent technical assessment of the product with concrete metrics.

Spanish editorial coverage continues in other Tier 1 outlets over the years, alongside FT-owned Sifted in 2020 (Tim Smith) and a long Xataka article by Senior Tech Editor Javier Pastor (2025) WP:CORPDEPTH (in this media long read with nearly 2,000 words, which was written by senior editor Javier Pastor, there ais a substantial original reporting and analysis. The senior editor provides his own editiorial view, somewhat sceptical and fressh, including the claim "La resonancia de próstata, que se realiza en apenas 10 minutos, se va a convertir en una prueba diagnóstica como la mamografía". The article works through the company's history and founder background, the 2014 pivot to deep learning, product strategy across QP-Brain, QP-Liver, QP-Prostate and QP-Insights, the direction toward digital-twin technology, data limitations in medical AI, Pastor's own read on the shift in market mood from scepticism to optimism between 2021 and 2025, and a closing analytical section on the future of the radiology profession. So, there is WP:SUSTAINED media coverage to satisfy NCORP through national press coverage, peer-reviewed evaluation, and sustained multi-year reporting. Per WP:NONENG, Tier one native-language sources have the same weight as English-language ones. There are more, I did not want to take much time from the community to evaluate other pieces. Javlacci (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Curious why Javlacci did not use these sources when creating the article, but indeed upon checking none of them that I can view appear to qualify:

• The first item (with subhed, in translation, reading The firm wins a three million contract in the UK. Last January, it closed a funding round of 50 million) appears to be classic WP:CORPTRIV about the firm's expansion and funding rounds. Cannot verify Javlacci's claim about it being longform because there is a very hard paywall.
• The El Espanol piece does not read like an independent source. It reads like sponsored content. Take this example: Pionero en este campo, el empresario ha conseguido crear unos algoritmos altamente exactos que consiguen leer más allá de lo que podría hacer el ojo al desnudo de un profesional cualificado frente a una imagen radiológica. Ahora, su compañía es sinónimo de calidad... ("A pioneer in this field, the entrepreneur has successfully created highly accurate algorithms capable of discerning details beyond what the naked eye of a qualified professional could perceive when examining a radiological image. Today, his company is synonymous with quality...")
• The El Confidencial item is more CORPTRIV about the company receiving a contract.
• The Expansion article has an extremely hard paywall and I can't see the text at all. Based on Javlacci's previous source assessment I'm skeptical.
• The Neuroradiology article is coverage of Quibim's product; it does not provide WP:CORPDEPTH coverage of Quibim.

All told, this is unconvincing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. To clarify, it's better to step back and look at the actual timeline of the coverage of the topic in quesiton here. This isn't just a single pr-release line around a funding, nor a re-prints of wire pieces. There is significant reporting in biggest Spanish media starting at least from January 2023, and it goes in different outlets and with various triggers during 3-4 years.

Timeline:

• January 2023 – Agencia SINC, technical piece, before the Series A round
• February 2025 – Xataka, after the Series A
• July 2025 – Cinco Días and El Confidencial, both on the NHS contract
• 2025 – El Español, long founder profile
• November 2025 – Expansión, biotech industry feature

That is roughly more than 3 years of independent coverage, across science mags, tech press, business dailies, a general daily, and an industry overview. Different events being covered, different details and approcaches by different editorial teams. To me, that is exactly what WP:SUSTAINED is supposed to look like.

Regarding WP:CORPDEPTH:

• La startup Quibim lleva su IA a la sanidad británica para la detección del cáncer de próstata Cinco Días (Santiago Millán, July 2025). Business daily of the El País group, named staff journalist, no sponsored marker. The WP:CORPTRIV objection is based on the subhed, but the subhed is just the news hook. The body actually walks through the QP-Prostate NHS deployment (seven hospitals, around 3,000 patients, framed as the largest of the seven SBRI awards and the only Spanish one), describes the product portfolio in the journalist's own words, discusses market positioning (170+ installations including Mass General Brigham and Stanford, regulatory approvals, global Philips deal, partnerships with Merck KGaA and Novartis), and covers company background. That goes well past "exists, raised money, opened office."
• La empresa española que hace biopsias virtuales con inteligencia artificial Agencia SINC (Alberto Payo, January 2023). Spanish state science news agency, run by FECYT under the Ministry of Science. It is an independent science journalism outlet, not commercial business press. Crucially, this piece is from before the Series A, so it cannot be folded into a "funding-round PR" framing. The article details the algorithmic architecture, the tumor-agnostic approach, specific clinical questions per cancer type, the spin-off origin, and specific figures (100,000 oncology patients, 200 million images). A lot of those facts do not show up in any of the other sources, which is a strong independence signal.
• Doctor Alberich, el ingeniero que detecta más de 150.000 cánceres con su IA: "Es el futuro de la precisión médica" El Español (Samuel Domínguez, January 2025). The criticism was here that it "reads like sponsored content." WP:ORGIND is about content control not tone. It excludes content "functionally an extension of, or controlled by, the subject." It does not exclude content just because the language is warm or positive. If it did, many media links in Forbes or FT would fail also, as they oftne use such phrases. Spanish long-form business writing tends to run warmer than Anglo/Saxon business writing, especially when the subject is a national success story. It's more about a style norm not paid placement I believe. The link is filed under Reportajes (long feature), has a named editorial team-member journalist and so on. The journalist brings his own framing (the "pharma of algorithms" metaphor) and provides verifiable numbers - exactly what is being seek on Wiki, not just re-prints.

Additional sources for WP:SUSTAINED:

• 'Start up' españolas que construyen el futuro de la medicina Expansión (Mar Benevente, November 2025). Major business daily, Unidad Editorial. The Quibim section by itself is short, so I am not calling it to be CORPDEPTH. However Quibim was picked as one of six representative Spanish biotech companies in an industry feature, which is really good example of notability expressed by an editorial team who selected independently out of industry.
• Xataka (Javier Pastor, Senior Editor, February 2025).one of the biggest Spanish tech media. The format is to talk before with the founder, and then make an editorial piece. so this one is not a true CORPDEPTH source, but it is still structured and framed by the journalist, with a comparison to other companies, somewhat analysis, with a reference to a US clinical study under FDA oversight. It adds the technical point of view.
• La sanidad pública del Reino Unido usará IA valenciana para detectar cáncer de próstata El Confidencial (Víctor Romero summer 2025). Top-tier Spanish daily. This one is triggered by the announcement but the NHS story within the storytelling is picked up independently by El Confidencial in addition to Cinco Días. It shows the contract got multiple media coverage in the Spanish national press.
• Regioanl coverage(WP AUD). Valencia Plaza (Estefanía Pastor, January 2025) has a coverage from the regional Valencian point of view. That is good. I'm not putting it or labeling it meets CORPDEPTH, but it has original reporting at least. There are more coverage from that newspaper.

In summary, the key point is that this is not merely an early-stage startup, but a developed company with contracts, partnerships, and deployments across different healthcare systems internationally. It also appears to be regarded by the Spanish press as a notable Spanish health-tech company, which explains why it has received repeated and substantive coverage in national and sector-specific media.

The article should be analyzed and asssesed first of all through the Spanish-language sources (and Catalan too) as those provide the strongest evidence of notability. When taken all together the available sources include both broader mentions and more in-depth independent coverage. This combination is sufficient to write a neutral verifiable article based on independent reporting.

Moreover, the issue is not simply whether sources can be found but whether those sources allow an encyclopedic article to be written without relying on the company itself. In this case, they do. Javlacci (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I support keeping the article, firstly because this is a classic WP:HEY situation. Now the article has been substantially updated and expanded with RS and reliable in-depth coverage that was not used or properly assessed before. The current version is no longer the same weak article that was nominated. In addition, that can help, the company's scientific methods have been written about and well covered in peer-reviewed journals. Xunnita-toro (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:NCORP is met with significant coverage. There are plenty of reliable, independent national media among different publishers (El Espanol, Valencia local, Unidad, TITANIA and not only) that are easily checkable and notable for wiki. The subject passes the notability check for organizations if to analyze the whole scope of references and coverage. --Hopkinkse (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I have examined the discussion‚ and the other sources presented at this AfD‚ and believe that it meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG․ Certainly all of those issues were concerns at the outset of the nomination‚ but are not as applicable now: quality of sources‚ trade coverage‚ and reliance on company-centric sources․ However‚ there has been subsequent discussion‚ and further evidence that there is other independent coverage including major Spanish-language national newspapers means that WP:NONENG does not seem to apply․

Published sources included multi-year coverage from Cinco Días‚ El Confidencial‚ El Español‚ Expansión‚ Xataka‚ and Agencia SINC‚ and technical/scientific coverage from peer-reviewed journals‚ rather than exclusively from funding announcements or official press releases․ In contrast‚ several articles referenced in the literature review discuss the same characteristics of Quibim's technology‚ its collaborations with the NHS‚ its positioning on the market‚ its founding members‚ its regulatory status‚ its portfolio of products‚ and its role in the Spanish health-tech and artificial intelligence sectors․

At the AfD‚ the question was whether there is enough coverage that is independent‚ reliable‚ and not mainly reliant on statements from the company itself for an article to be justified in a strictly encyclopedic manner‚ and with the sources identified in this discussion‚ I believe it is․ Amishspase (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Writingflows321; I do suspect that this account is compromised, and I'm noticing the same patterns with several keep votes where the most recent contributions from several accounts do not resemble those contribs from several years back and may be speaking through LLMs; Javlacci has the same pattern where they had minor edits without much AfD history, and now they've created an article and suddenly speak the same way as an LLM with the sole focus of keeping this article through sourcewashing. 21:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Nathannah • 📮 21:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the article sources are substantial and meets Wikipedia’s general notability requirements and NCORP. It is not good that the sources were added after the nomination had started, but multiple truly reliable (national and somewhat global) sources have now been identified that had not been previously analyzed. --Leuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as the subject's notability has been significantly improved and proven since the nomination and new reliable CORPDEPTH sources have been added. The company is simply well covered in its home country, Spain, and more. Therefore NCORP is met here. Never-ending string (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a curious pattern in this AfD -- while there are certainly a couple participants of standing, there are multiple participants here whose accounts were dormant and only recently began participating at AfD or which were created and began participating at AfD within their first handful of edits. I'm interested to see how AfD regulars would evaluate these sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. The well is clearly poisoned here, it's unfortunate that this might be kept because of the above bludgeoning. MediaKyle (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.

• Specifically in response to the Keep !votes above, clearly some editors have difficulty evaluating the criteria. And also - please stop assuming that all "coverage" meets the criteria. At least check that it isn't based on PR or interview (e.g. this "long" profile on the CEO is not "independent content").
• In a nutshell, "independent" doesn't just mean that the publisher is independent (or notable/reliable/etc), it also goes to the content. The content cannot simply regurgitate company descriptions and information, or that of their partners or backers. The content must also be in-depth, so once you strip out the regurgitated content, the remainder must still have something independent. See the description I quoted above from ORGIND ... that's what is required - therefore content such as El Confidencial, Víctor Romero, 9 July 2025 - which is based entirely on PR from the company, such as this announcement over a week earlier fails ORGIND and therefore cannot be used to establish notability.
• It was also suggested above with reference to "Doctor Alberich, el ingeniero que detecta más de 150.000 cánceres con su IA: "Es el futuro de la precisión médica" that ORGIND is above "content control not tone". That's wrong. ORGIND is concerned only about Original Content - and again, an article that relies *entirely* on an interview with the CEO is not "independent content".
• The same issues arise with *all* of the sources mentioned by Javlacci with the only exception being this: "Comparing two artificial intelligence software packages for normative brain volumetry in memory clinic imaging" is a research document which provides zero information *about* the *company* - the topic in question. This also therefore cannot be used to establish the notability of the company.

If any of the Keep !voters wants to point to another source, please also point out that page/paragraph/section/whatever that contained the in-depth "independent content" *about* the *company* that you are relying on to establish notability. Do not bother to post links to more advertorials or CEO interviews or regurgitated PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• New Comment Replying directly to HighKing because they did source-by-source and that deserves the same back.

On the academic paper HighKing's right, that one is about the product, not the company, the source's good anyway, and the question arises: may a non-notable spam-only company create a notable product?

On the other three I wouuld kindly disagree. There are also sources not mentioned here in the previous vote.

• The clearest one is Agencia SINC, Alberto Payo, 21 January 2023: https://www.agenciasinc.es/Reportajes/La-empresa-espanola-que-hace-biopsias-virtuales-con-inteligencia-artificial. This is from two years before the Series A press release that is why the "based on PR" argument can't be used here. The PR didn't exist yet. FECYT-funded science wire. The technical writeup of the neural network architecture is in Payo's voice, not a quoted CEO:

"Tanto la primera como la segunda capa de algoritmos creados por Quibim se basan en redes neuronales convolucionales, una arquitectura de redes que funcionan de manera muy parecida a las neuronas en la corteza visual primaria, que aprenden directamente de los datos y que resultan muy útiles para encontrar patrones en imágenes."

Roughly: both algorithm layers Quibim built are based on convolutional neural networks, an architecture that works similar to neurons in the primary visual cortex, learns directly from data, useful for finding patterns in images. That's the journalist's own technical explanation, not from a press kit. Payo also reports a public-vs-private funding split (14M private, 7M public) that I haven't found in any Quibim communications from 2023.

• La Vanguardia, journalist name is Gabriel Trindade, date is: 28 January 2025 (lavanguardia.com/dinero/20250128/10325398/sabadell-asabys-colidera-ronda-financiacion-quibim-47-6-millones.html). I know the worry here, the date falls in the Series A week, so this could be read as not independent because of the same-day Spanish coverage. The reason I don't think it should be rejected: this guy Trindade covers Asabys Partners as his standing beat at La Vanguardia. He covered also previoulsy Asabys's earlier fund closings before Quibim's round. His Quibim news article has an inline "lee también" link back to that earlier Asabys coverage. This isn't Quibim press releases being spread by La Vanguardia. He's or was simply covering one of his portfolio organisations, our topic.

Very strong case of sustained-coverage a quite famous and wholly relialbe and independent Valencia Plaza. The journalist Estefania Pastor has been the main reporter on the company since 2017. Eight years of coverage by one named journalist at a big Spanish business daily, during funding rounds, regulatory milestones, products, hires, problems, NHS (Britain) cooperations and more. That's a sustained coverage not a press-event bulk of articles in a churnalism way.

• Levante-EMV adds a similar pattern with shorter time spread: two pieces by two different staff reporters at the same paper, fifteen months later. Joan Batalla in January 2025 on the funding round, Eduardo Enric in April 2026 on the Banco Sabadell award. Different triggers.

Last point on the framing. Those who vote for delete read the Spanish coverage as one press scope or dump from A Series fundraising. SINC is 2023, the Pastor covers this company at Valencia Plaza since 2017, Levante-EMV April 2026 is 15 month after the announcement.

P.S. Here are some original parts with coverage:

From SINC quote from the news:

"Un problema importante con el que se encontró la compañía al principio es que al recibir las imágenes estas les llegaban con 'cierta heterogeneidad en su calidad'. Es decir, según vinieran de un fabricante de máquinas u otro la calidad, el brillo, el contraste, el ruido o la resolución se mostraban diferentes. Por ello, desarrolló unas metodologías basadas en inteligencia artificial que homogenizan la calidad de imagen entre todos los fabricantes. [...] Tanto la primera como la segunda capa de algoritmos creados por Quibim se basan en redes neuronales convolucionales, una arquitectura de redes que funcionan de manera muy parecida a las neuronas en la corteza visual primaria, que aprenden directamente de los datos y que resultan muy útiles para encontrar patrones en imágenes." [...] "Quibim delega en Microsoft toda su infraestructura tecnológica, desde almacenamiento a computación, de control de usuarios a su plataforma que despliega los algoritmos. La compañía de Redmond es su proveedor tecnológico principal, estructurando todo a través de Microsoft Azure."

Here is La Vanguardia quote from the news:

"La gestora catalana ha realizado la operación a través de su fondo Sabadell Asabys II, con un volumen de 180 millones de euros, junto al nuevo vehículo de Buenavista Equity Partners en asociación con Columbus Venture Partners. La operación también incluye nuevos inversores –UI Investissements y GoHub Ventures– y varios socios ya presentes en el accionariado. Entre los inversores individuales, destaca Tony Fadell, director de Build Collective, fundador de Nest e inventor del iPod y el doctor Jonathan Milner, fundador de Abcam."

Thanks for taking the time in this discussion. Javlacci (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

There's also El Español Reportajes, journalist is Samuel Domínguez, dated 13 January 2025 (https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20250113/doctor-alberich-ingeniero-detecta-canceres-ia-futuro-precision-medica/915158933_0.html). This one is not after series A or B, not pressreleas but a clear ORGIND: it was published 15 days BEFORE the Series A press release came out, on 13 January nothing about the round was public yet. Near 2000 words. Domínguez writes about the company's trajectory in his own framing:

"Esto va a ser el futuro". Con esta premisa Ángel Alberich se puso a trabajar con tan solo 23 años en el desarrollo de algoritmos sanitarios para romper la brecha entre la ingeniería de telecomunicaciones y la medicina, y 17 años después ha conseguido levantar un imperio de productos médicos que operan alrededor de todo el mundo. Combinando la integración de las inteligencias artificiales a los datos computacionales de salubridad, el valenciano está revolucionando las técnicas de detección de cánceres y otras complicaciones médicas. Quibim, el resultado de años de esfuerzo e investigación, es la compañía liderada por el ingeniero que utiliza las herramientas de IA aplicadas a las imágenes de radiología en su espectro general para poder hallar la enfermedad, diagnosticar, y predecir en condiciones óptimas la salud de los pacientes. ....La computación y las nuevas tecnologías permiten abordar nuevos desafíos que hasta hace más bien poco no se podían retar. Consciente de esta situación, Alberich aprovechó el momento para interpretar datos sanitarios a través de técnicas informáticas que el sector médico estaba pasando por alto. .... Pionero en este campo, el empresario ha conseguido crear unos algoritmos altamente exactos que consiguen leer más allá de lo que podría hacer el ojo al desnudo de un profesional cualificado frente a una imagen radiológica. Ahora, su compañía es sinónimo de calidad, y sus productos sanitarios se utilizan en más de 24 países como India, Estados Unidos, Japón, Francia, Reino Unido… ..... Gracias a las lecturas que llevan a cabo las inteligencias artificiales entrenadas por el valenciano sobre las imágenes médicas, se han podido diagnosticar más de 150.000 casos de cáncer en su fase temprana que permite un mejor tratamiento, por ende, una solución más eficaz. Su éxito es tan grande y relevante que el 60% de las principales compañías farmacéuticas trabajan con ellos, y los productos que crean desde Quibim se encuentran en más de 170 centros de trabajo.

Javlacci (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• SINC is published by the Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología, which our article describes as a Spanish public nonprofit organization dependent on the Ministry of Science that promotes Spanish science and technology. According to SINC's website, SINC ofrece su servicio a periodistas, científicos y ciudadanos para dar a conocer los últimos desarrollos de la ciencia más relevante, con especial énfasis sobre los trabajos españoles e iberoamericanos / SINC offers its services to journalists, scientists, and citizens to publicize the latest developments in the most relevant science, with a special emphasis on Spanish and Ibero-American research. This indicates to me that SINC is operating less as an independent journalistic entity and more as a promotional outlet for Spanish technology businesses, which explains the somewhat gushing tone of its coverage of Quibim. Once again, Javlacci has brought to this discussion a promotional source that does not appear to be independent (since it is based entirely on its interview with the CEO). @HighKing specifically asked for non-promotional sources and this isn't one. Instead we get another WP:WALLOFTEXT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Just to reply and to add to what Dclemens1971 said (which I agree with). First, I would ask Javlacci to spend time investigating the sources for non-independent content, because it is clear from the sources listed above that this investigation has not been done. As already pointed out, SINC is not an independent source since it is actively promoting Spanish companies. In addition, the Lavanguardia.com article is simply regurgitating news of a funding round which mirrors the Asabys press release almost verbatim. Next, the "Startup of the Year" award is not a significant award, and the article is routine, event‑style coverage, with negligible independent content about the company itself. Next, the Elespanol article is a profile on the CEO, relying entirely on quotes and provided information - it has zero independent content about the company, zero independent verification/analysis/opinion/etc. In summary, these articles suffer from the same flaws. Please understand what "independent content" requires. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 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.

Act One (2026 film)

Act One (2026 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't pass WP:NFILM. I propose Draftify until Release. SatnaamIN (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose: The film releases in a few weeks, how is doesn't pass WP:NFILM ? KingArti (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @KingArti, could you elaborate on why this passes NFILM? Releasing in a few weeks should not play any factor meeting NFILM. -2pou (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, per User:KingArti the article does pass requirements for WP:NFILM.

CostalCal (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@CostalCal, same question to you regarding how this meets the requirements of NFILM. The first source is simply a press release where the film isn't really discussed at all. It just states three people and a director are in it as a passing mention while the article is actually about the collaboration of other institutions, and this only comes up because of one actor. The other two are about a festival where this will simply play. These don't rise above WP:ROUTINE coverage asked for in NFILM. -2pou (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The biggie here is that in its current state, this doesn't pass NFF. To pass NFF, you have to establish where the film meets NFILM. Since an unreleased film is unlikely to gain major awards or get reviews prior to its release date, this means that it must be established via its production. To establish notability for the production, you have to show where it's received non-routine coverage. Stuff like notifications that it will screen or announcing a new cast member typically are not going to count towards this, as they're usually press releases that have been slightly reworded, if not reprinted verbatim. There's often no commentary/criticism included, just a basic notification. The issue with saying that it will release in a few weeks is that we can't guarantee that it will get additional coverage. It's extremely likely that it will, given the cast, crew, and where it will premiere, but it's never a guarantee. There have been moderate to higher profile films that have screened at major film festivals and not received coverage. It's rare, but it does happen. So to establish notability here we would need to establish how the production was notable and all we have are two routine notifications that it's in the Tribeca lineup. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  As you have agreed that at current stage the film doesn't pass WP:NFF, what's wrong to Drafify it and bring to mainspace after release when there will be reviews? SatnaamIN (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have no problem with that, but I hadn't had a chance to search for sourcing before making that. I'll try to look for sourcing today and report back. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify or redirect to director's page. Given that it will release relatively soon, I think that redirecting with history would probably be the better option here. That way if/when the reviews start rolling in after it premieres, it can just be restored and wouldn't have to go through the process of moving the draft live. I suppose the draftspace could be good in case there's a flurry of articles about the production, but in my experience with the average film festival release, these tend to pop up around the same time as the reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I'm willing to assume that anything that's releasing in three weeks at Tribeca with that many bluelinks in the cast list is going to meet NFILM as soon as the critics get their hands on it. No point in moving it just to bring it back. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify via WP:TOOSOON I think it makes the most sense to wait and see what the significant coverage is like after the premier. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify. Speculation about how it will do after release is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. M kuhner (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep or Draftify It just need sources, coverage etc. Abskiee (talk)
• Draftify as the best WP:ATD under the circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify as per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 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.

Los Angeloser

Los Angeloser (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 Hang Cool Teddy Bear because the article fails WP:NSONG. 1 chart position is not enough for notability. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Texas. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hang Cool Teddy Bear as the best WP:ATD option in these circumstances where there are sources that are insufficient for notability but for which there is an obvious merge target. Alansohn (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.

Shubhi Sharma

Shubhi Sharma (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 In WP:ACTOR EditorOfBollywood (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. EditorOfBollywood (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Noting that I've partially undone the temp account edits that preceded this AfD's opening, which removed most of the article's sources. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 16:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I will undo again and listen whenever you undo or revert something please check WP:BEFORE first. Some references may look weak initially but they still need proper verification before removal. ~2026-30724-66 (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-30724-66: WP:BEFORE refers to the steps one takes before nominating an article for deletion, not something one does before adding a source. Your edit removes:

  • 2019 Times of India article
  • 2019 Bhaskar article
  • 2020 Times of India article
  • 2014 Bhaskar article
  • 2013 Times of India article
  • 2022 Times of India article

  Leaving only two sources: a different 2013 Times of India article and a list of awardees for the 5th Bhojpuri Film Awards. I am no expert on Times of India/Bhaskar and it is possible these are paid or otherwise not independent. But that is something which optimally would be discussed here, in the discussion about whether this subject has significant coverage, rather than simply removing them and giving the impression that the sources do not exist. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Multiple sources identify Shubhi Sharma as a Bhojpuri actress. A simple search for Subhi Sharma brings up plenty of sources confirming this. Not sure why the user keeps initiating one AfD after another.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 08:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Multiple sources are available to prove motability. Easy GNG pass. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:28, 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.

Cave Companions

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

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

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Ashab al-Kahf (militant group) § Merge

 – FaviFake (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging Cave Companions into Ashab al-Kahf (militant group), since they both deal with the same topic. Farcazo (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom; both articles cover the same group, as "Ashab al-Kahf" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME from all the sources I've looked at. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 11:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Iran, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 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.

Isabella Troy Brazoban

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

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

No significant improvement since being reviewed and tagged for notability in March. WP:TOOSOON. Has some published campus new items (but insufficient for WP:NAUTHOR); some activism with local impact; insufficient for WP:NBIO. Klbrain (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Weak claims to notability. Ideally we'd redirect to Banned Together, the notable (see ) documentary which she features in, but nobody's written that yet. pburka (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've created a page about the documentary now. If not kept, please redirect there. pburka (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect or a smerge to the documentary, Banned Together. Make sure to keep the Teen Vogue reference. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 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.

Machan AI

Machan AI (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 AI chatbot potentially fails WP:GNG as I could not locate any significant coverage in independent sources. Please note that Draft:Machan AI was eventually rejected rather than just declined and the creator of this article is an WP:SPA. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - according to this, the creator of the app is called Chamidu Fernando, which matches the username of the SPA account. Coincidence or COI? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: the screenshot in the draft also shows the name "Chamidu", so I'm pretty sure that this is a COI. --gurkubondinn 10:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment ^{(heading to a Delete)} - I would be surprised if this article was LLM output or assisted by an LLM, which is grounds for a deletion by itself. I noticed WP:AISIGNS, such as WP:AITITLECASE, extraneous subheadings, the overuse of em-dashes and WP:RO3.
  An example of WP:RO3 in the article, if your wondering: It supports common web technologies including HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and can provide guidance on project structure, component design, and framework usage. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Nevermind, Press Delete - Every source (duped too) that have been introduced by the recent revision are not WP:RS or WP:INDEPENDENT at all, failing WP:GNG.

  As a note, SPA account added back WP:AITITLECASE and em-dashes—including nonexistent categories. < i added that emdash on purpose

  I have a big suspicion this is LLM output now. Thoughts? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this is LLM, unfortunately. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah... seeing the WP:AISIGNS page and my own experience with detecting LLM output, I'm fairly certain this is pure LLM output.

We got WP:AITITLECASE, nonexistent categories, overusage of em dashes (with spaces — like this), them extraneous subheadings, puffy writing, and more...

Now, I'm not trying to say "This is 100% LLM slop frfr" but the evidence and tells is overwhelming.

Rather than building a proprietary large language model, the platform integrates existing third-party AI services into a custom-built frontend.

The platform assists with writing, reviewing, and debugging code. It supports common web technologies including HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and can provide guidance on project structure, component design, and framework usage.

• WP:PUFF and promotion-eqsue style, Wikipedia's tone would not write this. Also WP:RO3...

The platform supports three display modes — light, dark, and automatic (system-matched) — controllable from within the interface.

Users can manage their account, review past conversations, and permanently delete their data through a dedicated profile and settings page.

User account information, conversation history, and uploaded files are stored within Firebase's cloud infrastructure.

• Follows the WP:RO3 for LLMs, along with them em-dashes. Parentheses are usually better off in footnotes or removed, and are rare to see in articles nowadays.

Wearing my now striked WP:AGF hat, I would not be surprised if this was written by Machan AI itself, given the apparent COI. If so, I think this deletion would fall under WP:NOLLM.

The only way this would not be LLM output is if the author of the article read a lot of LLM output and it naturally integrated into their writing, though I am 50% sure that's not the case. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 08:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete because this doesn't meet WP:GNG (nor WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB), everything is sourced to the WP:PRIMARY source "machanai.netlify.app", clearly AI-generated with for example WP:AITABLE, the bulk of the article seems to just be an AI-generated summary of the terms-of-service (helpfully linked in § External links), and the draft seems to have been rejected twice (and in its current form contains irrelevant anecdotes). --gurkubondinn 10:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. --gurkubondinn 10:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, clear failure for WP:GNG. The only sources provided are from the company website, and searching around I can't find a single article mentioning them. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 11:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG as I could not locate any reliable sources that talk about this. Also obvious LLM use and the creator seems to be the owner of the subject. Laura240406 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: A likely LLM-generated article that is also a COI article (without actual significant or independent coverage to be had) that is also a rejection of an AfC rejection is not what Wikipedia is looking for, to say the least. Is there any reason to not consider G15 (or even G11) here? (I'd be surprised if we even need seven days to determine this in any event.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  G15 is actually quite strict, I don't think it meets either of the two criteria, although I have no objection if anyone does tag it as such. G11 is a bit borderline. There is definitely intent to promote but the actual prose is fairly close to NPOV, so I'd imagine many admins would be uncomfortable deleting it as a G11. It would meet WP:A7 if the tag could be used for software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Personally I think that deletion via AfD for failing NOLLM is the best way to go here. Then WP:G4 would most likely apply to future recreations, given the lack of RS about the subject. --gurkubondinn 23:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete likely LLM generated article.

  Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 01:00, 30 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.

Soumya Vilekar

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

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

BLP with note tag since November 2025. Refs are profiles, blogs, interview and annoucements (press-release). Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Poetry, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources are primarily interviews, blogs, profiles, and press releases, with insufficient independent significant coverage to establish notability. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete it. She doesn't pass any criteria of WP:BIO.--Zne0us Phenix (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Planet Marathi OTT, the notable streaming service she founded. pburka (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, and as reasonable in these circumstances. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 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.

Snow Feinan Li

Snow Feinan Li (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)

References are PR and press-release for company on a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Arts, China, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Eh Delete them. Most of them are creating their page via Upwork, Freelancer, Fiverr kinda MILL. Their articles are clearly promotional. --Zne0us Phenix (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Press Delete: I think this is half-WP:PROMO, it even has a YouTube citation. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TNT - all those bare URLs to sources of questionable reliability! Bearian (talk) 23:08, 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.

2026 BWF World Championships

2026 BWF World Championships (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 because: This article about the 2026 BWF World Championships has been draftified once and so may not be unilaterally draftified again. It has zero independent references and so does not establish notability.

• Redirect to 2026 BWF World Championships, as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Delhi. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Wait wait please. I am bit confused as 2026 BWF World Championships page is nominated for a redirect while we nomination doesn't have a target page to redirect. May I ask the nominator to place a destination of redirect? Zne0us Phenix (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Withdraw - Wrong page nominated. I had the cursor on the page to be the target of the redirect, rather than the page to be blanked and redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 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.

Eddie Gallagher (chef)

Eddie Gallagher (chef) (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 fails the Wikipedia:Notability (people) and general notability guidelines. The stub relies on weak, self-published promotional blogs (Chef Uniforms Blog, OysterLink) and routine local media coverage of a local restaurant opening. The external official link is an unmaintained theme template. Furthermore, the Telegraph reference is a misdirection; the subject was merely a minor retail investor complaining about a wine investment scheme scandal, which does not establish encyclopedic notability for a chef career. Recommend Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balakekey (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Television. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:47, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - the person’s page is poorly supported by the third party sources. And the current blog and dependent sources are not reliable or deeply cover the chef.--Leuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 08:16, 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!} 05:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as the sourcing here is not the in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete - the DNAInfo is a good source, but that's all that would count towards significant coverage. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 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.

Glyndwr Jones

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

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the subject, in terms of WP:GNG. Specifically, the subject was never elected to the Senedd, and so did not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, and there are not 2 sources independent of the subject giving significant coverage to Jones. He is clearly a well-connected political writer on devolution, but this does not guarantee notability.

Pinging @Cymrujones: (sut mae?) and @Bearian: who proposed this for deletion, and @Edit function: who opposed this. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - as I inferred from my second to the proposed deletion, this looks like a LinkedIn page, not an encyclopedia article. Every reader knows that we are not LinkedIn. This is very poorly sourced for a BLP, and lacks significant coverage. The burden of proof is on the creator and those who want to keep a BLP. The current sources are literally LinkedIn, primary sources, a bunch of manifestos, YouTube, and self-published sources. He's just Not notable. Please don't make us look silly: see WP:NABOBS. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per information presented by @Bearian. Additionally, I couldn't find any information else on him. Nighfidelity (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - per points raised by Bearian.--SouthernNights (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Thank you for drawing my attention to this. The article has been substantially updated, including verifiable, external links. Edit function (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit function (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Edit function: Would it be possible for you to list some of the sources you have added to the article here? There are now an excessive number of citations on the article and checking is difficult. The ones on the article before seemed to be unreliable, not independent or do not give significant coverage. If you could simply add the best three sources, showing their independence and reliability and stating the level of coverage given (how many paragraphs are dedicated to Jones), that would make this discussion easier for all concerned.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, I have drawn out these links from reliable independent sources critiquing Glyndwr's work:

Articles:

By Carwyn Jones, former First Minister of Wales for a decade, on the book A League-Union of the Isles (whole article in the Western Mail (Wales))… ^[1] (for ease of reading, his Western Mail newspaper article is reproduced here by an online outlet ^[2])

By Catrin Pascoe, Editor of the Western Mail (Wales) and Wales Online (Media Wales) (whole article) … ^[3]

By Martin Shipton, Wales’s foremost political journalist for decades (all of second half of article in Nation.Cymru)... ^[4]

Supporting evidence:

As an example of government referencing of Glyndwr's work, of which there are many, please see this link to the Senedd website, under the Recent Additions section, highlighting A League-Union of the Isles… ^[5]

As an example of Glyndwr's standing as a panelist on constitutional matters, please see this public event with the Swiss Ambassador to UK, Laura McAllister CBE and Sir Paul Silk KCB… ^[6]

Glyndwr's confirmation as a Fellow of the Institute of Welsh Affairs – awarded in recognition to those who are making significant contributions to civil society in Wales in their fields of expertise, in this case - constitutional work). ^[7]

Happy to answer any questions and to reduce number of links in article, with thanks again Edit function (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete call me a nattering nabob of negativism, but there's so much stuff and sources here that just don't amount to anything approaching notability as I see it. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed: less is more. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - The article doesn't demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Most sources are primary, affiliated, or provide a passing mention and not significant independent coverage. A standalone biography does not appear to be supported. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:53, 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.

Public–private joint management

Public–private joint management (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)

Seems to be a WP:LLMT of a page on zh.wiki including many references with improbable dates "Retrieved 2012-09-08". It seems likely that these have not been checked and instead have been copied and pasted, possibly as part of a LLM translation. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and China. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose It's not an LLM translation. I used machine translation with double checking their accuracy, which, from my knowledge, is allowed in Wikipedia. I copied the sources from the Chinese page but I did check them. I was just not sure to update the retrieving dates afterwards. The Account 2 (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep - I agree with @User:The Account 2 that the concerns brought upon in this nomination relate to editorial and maintenance issues‚ not valid deletion concerns․ Machine assisted translation‚ copied retrieval dates‚ citation formatting issues‚ and similar matters can be solved through maintenance edits and proper review of cited material․ WP:AFD is not a process to determine if the article's topic can be fixed‚ but to determine whether or not the topic is meaningful enough in an encyclopedic sense to justify keeping the article․ If it is‚ verifiable‚ legitimate governance and economic theory covered in other language editions of Wikipedia‚ there are more constructive options for improving such content to meet our standards of sourcing than wholesale deletion․ These include tagging it‚ reviewing the sources it uses‚ and collaboratively improving it‚ where there is verifiable notability for the subject in question from independent English-language sources․ Amishspase (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• no. Sloppy copying of text and code from other language wikis - which may well themselves have been produced by LLMs - fundamentally degrades the basis of this encyclopedia, hence we focus on human edited content. It is of critical importance and therefore central to AfD. And frankly if more time was spent writing the content rather than spending 2 seconds getting a machine to create the page and then, we are to believe in good faith, extensive time trying to defend it, things would be considerably better. Human edited pages are always better than copy&paste. JMWt (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment Hatted the above, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Writingflows321. I suspect this account is both compromised and also using LLMs (which this response above to JMWt was) to keep their slopfarm going. No judgement on either this article or The Account 2, who I don't suspect of anything involving that at all. Nathannah • 📮 23:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete While the article creators explanation is reasonable for sourcing concerns, there are some plagarism that got translated over from zh article. The source is used is multiple places so it may be difficult to remove the problematic content:

Jumpytoo Talk 01:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - everybody knows that we are not a soapbox and we are not Grokpedia. Between the agenda-pushing and documented LLM use, delete and start over. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 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.

Hippo Press

Hippo Press (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)

Although this article has been undeleted, I still cannot find any in-depth coverage of this publisher in independent reliable sources. GTrang (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: it is well-known in New Hampshire. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Please see WP:LOCALFAME and WP:ITEXISTS. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Newspaper is not notable. The article lacks enough third-party sources to establish notability. This newspaper is not a newspaper of record and has not won any notable awards. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Eric Schucht, are the references you added from the Bangor Daily News and the Concord Monitor available online anywhere? I'd like to check those out to see if they're SIGCOV. While I was unable to find SIGCOV myself searching newspapers.com, my impression of Hippo Press is that they are a significant New Hampshire publication, and that's reinforced by the quote here that they are the largest weekly newspaper in the state. So per WP:NMEDIA I'd like to try to see if it's possible to save the article. Sdkb ^talk 02:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Those sources are in Newspapers.com. I've gone back and added the URLs in the article. Eric Schucht (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I converted those two images into clippings, so that editors without newspapers.com access can see them (anyone can access clippings, but you need an account for images, so it's always best to make clippings). The Concord Monitor coverage was significant but the Bangor Daily News coverage was not. However, I found some additional significant coverage of the paper from The Portsmouth Herald. With that, we now have multiple notability-qualifying sources, and given WP:NMEDIA's encouragement to be generous (there are around 70 Wikipedia articles that cite the Hippo Press, and it's useful for readers of those articles' references to be able to check out what we say about the Hippo Press to assess their reliability), I'm willing to let this stand. I am, however, going to nominate Manchester Express to be merged into it. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 15:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Express. Sdkb ^talk 15:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - not award-winning sourcing but enough to confirm its existence and role, which is all we need. The Manchester Express article should be incorporated into it, as has been suggested. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:32, 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!} 05:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep, coverage seems to be a GNG pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:13, 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.

2026–27 Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. season

2026–27 Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. season (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)

Empty sections, infoboxes, and templates; relies on a single source. Xomegas (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Draftify as it is WP:TOOSOON. I also would't oppose Deletion per WP:TNT if that is needed. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: There is no necessity to remove or draftify this article. The 2026–27 Scottish Championship is scheduled to commence on 31 July 2026. ICTFC are the champions of the 2025–26 Scottish League One and will be promoted to the higher league for the upcoming season. The fixture list for a new season is usually announced by the Scottish Professional Football League in June, i.e., SPFL fixtures for 2025/26 released on June 20. The squad is already in place, aside from any transfers, loans in, or loans out that may occur before the close of the summer transfer window, i.e., List of Scottish football transfers summer 2025. Reliable references have been added to verify the current content of the article. Therefore, the article should be retained and can be expanded with additional information and sources in due course. QEnigma 论 06:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep- After @QEnigma:'s improvements and comment. New season starts in 2 months. Fcstmani (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – A season of a Scottish first-tier team meets the WP:NSEASON criteria. Improvements / more sourcing will occur during the course of the season. Svartner (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Svartner: - I don't know if this affects your !vote but they will be playing in the second tier, not the first -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I still believe that keeping is the best option at the moment. If the article isn't developed during the season, it can be renominated. Svartner (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or draftify – there may not currently exist significant coverage about this season in particular, but as an upcoming WP:NSEASON-passing season we have reasonable certainty that it will. I do not think it is worth deleting this now just to recreate it in a couple weeks or months. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:12, 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.

Anand Sansthan

Anand Sansthan (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 sure how this has survived this long... A bunch of WP:EL but not a single source that I am seeing. It might meet basic notability, but best case this is a prime example of BLOWITUP. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment If we look at the previous version, it appeared to satisfy the relevant guidelines. However, after the article was extensively rewritten from scratch (per WP:STARTOVER) by Bhartiya vimarsh, the current version seems promotional in tone and may either be deleted or reverted to the old version. 𝓖𝓲𝓻𝓭𝓲➃➄ ✍️ (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 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.

Italian tuneup

Italian tuneup (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)

Kept in 2013 due to sources. However, of the three sources, the first two only use the term in passing without defining it, and the third is 404. I found multiple sources using the term, but none defining it or diving into its etymology or history as a slang term. It's a straight up WP:DICDEF, and has been in CAT:NN since 2019. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klopman diamond (3rd nomination), where sources were found that used the term but none were found that defined it. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Transportation. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Glossary of automotive terms. The Popular Mechanics and Lane's Complete Dictionary of Automotive Terms sources in the article should be enough for a sourced mention there. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more supports for the merge suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per A412. The article is little more than a definition for slang term; however, it's still known in the field and the sources do define it to a degree, so merging it to Glossary of automotive terms is reasonable. --Sable232 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Glossary of automotive terms, making sure yo saving the citations, and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per WP:ATD. The article is about a term that is documented in reliable automotive sources, but the coverage on the page is dictionary-level not in-depth (WP:DICDEF concerns). The content would be better suited for Glossary of automotive terms. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:35, 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.

Ascension Theory

Ascension Theory (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:NMUSIC. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – insufficient sourcing, and on a couple searches I've not been able to find additional coverage. Based on their website and other search results it seems like the only albums they produced are the two listed (i.e., inactive for 20 years), so any sourcing would likely be contemporary and potentially not easily accessible from today's internet. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete given the lack of sources in the article or identifiable in a Google search that would satisfy notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more, although per Vermont, this is unlikely. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 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.

Asche (band)

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per total lack of sources to establish anything. Retro music11 (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Allmusic is a reliable source, but one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 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.

Debt Badge

Debt Badge (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 should be merged to Thomas Massie, where the information can be better presented in context. At under 300 words, it is a stub that replicates context already at the top level article (e.g. Massie's educational background), and goes into excessive detail, such as the full quotes. A fair bit of the coverage here appears to revolve around the device being used to dunk on Trump, making this somewhat subtle WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Whonting (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. Whonting (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, Economics, Technology, United States of America, Kentucky, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This article passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV with several of the sources being entirely focused on the product which also means it passes WP:NPRODUCT and WP:PASSING. This debt badge product has existed for years and has received sustained coverage over the years meaning WP:SUSTAINED is met as well. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  This proposal is based on WP:PAGEDECIDE. Many of the sources, including those you have just added are related to Trump, which under TRUMPCRUFT are generally given less weight in notability considerations and whether information should get its own page. Whonting (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  So do you believe that the page would be more notable if the Trump stuff was deleted? I believe the page is notable even without that content to be honest. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Subject has enough significant coverage for it's own page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Sources provide coverage because of U.S. Representative Thomas Massie. Azuredivay (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge The subject was an invention of Thomas Massie and is primarily worn by Thomas Massie. It would appropriately fit into his political views section as it has been a source of contention with Donald Trump who does not agree with Massie's view on prioritising national debt reduction. Assaultim (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: same as Agnieszka653 Atomus23 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge All coverage is in the context of Massie, so it should be covered in his article. This is not an independently notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 16:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom, @Agnieszka653 and @Reywas92 42-BRT (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The article satisfies WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV with coverage across major independent sources cited within (NYT, NPR, The Atlantic, Politico, Roll Call). The topic is treated in multiple sources as a distinct technological and political artifact, not a passing detail in Thomas Massie’s biography. The level and duration of coverage supports standalone notability. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • The idea that these are all SIGCOV is laugable. The NYT sources are literally both just a photo caption, the Atlantic source is literally only "Massie built a clip-on debt clock that he wears on his lapel", the NPR sources are just "The longtime fiscal hawk wears a smart badge on his suit pocket that tracks the national debt live." and "He wears his signature debt clock on his lapel. He basically wears that everywhere, and he votes that way." Politico only quotes Massie's tweet “I’m going to program my debt badge to display the number of milliseconds that have elapsed since @realDonaldTrump has tweeted at me last.” The Roll Call article does have more to it – all in the context of Massie's obsession with quotes from him – but his is not something Massie makes and sells or is anything beyond his biography whatsoever, it's just his personal thing since he's obsessed with the debt. I agree it's not a passing detail of his biography so it should be more than a passing mention at Thomas Massie#National debt with this merged there, but don't pretend this is something separate from him, some kind of proper noun. — Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. This subject warrants no more than a few sentences in the Massie biography. The current article is mostly trivia. In the absence of a much more notable and appropriate parent topic, the coverage of this subject might pass WP:GNG, but the principles of WP:NOPAGE and the thinness of the sourcing suggests that the topic can be covered perfectly well in the parent topic and does not warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I understand the argument to merge this to Thomas Massie's page, it is compelling. However, this device is bigger than Thomas Massie the man. Massie is a sitting member of the US Congress, so any issue he raises is a national issue. His device is tied to the National Debt, so we could easily argue this should be merged with the United States Department of the Treasury page as a protest against the debt. Every sitting US president has added to the debt, so the dunking on Trump claim doesn't hold up as we could easily dunk on Joe Biden et al. This article stands on its own and can/should be expanded.

Dd3r1n0 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:MERGENOT, meets notability to warrant a standalone. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Merge The badge was created and only used by Thomas Massie, so its notability does not extend beyond Massie. The badge has been extensively covered by sources not because of its own individual significance, but because it was worn by Massie as part of his political stunts, and the coverage relates specifically to Massie’s personal use of the badge. The current article is indeed a stub and is entirely about Massie, so there is no reason for it to be a standalone article. I would understand if the badge was worn by multiple politicians as a sign of protest, but because Massie is the badge’s only wearer the topic is completely tied to Massie’s political persona and is not “bigger than Thomas Massie the man.” John Adams 362 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per sources. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 03:28, 30 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.

Habibi Yah Habibi

Habibi Yah Habibi (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)

Hebrew song unref since 2015 --Altenmann >talk 18:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Asher Mizrahi: There's some information about this song at the National Library of Israel, but elsewhere it just seems to appear in some databases, so not enough for independent notability as I see it. Since the composer is a red link right now, its most well-known singer is an OK target. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • There is no info about it there besides he was singing it, unrefereced, too. and no evidence that he is "most well-known" --Altenmann >talk 20:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related AfD discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Asher Mizrahi. Can be covered at this depth in the parent article. Very early for a standalone. The intro is focused on present referencing and does not articulate a valid reason to delete that complies with NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I alerted WP:Judaism. I have no opinion. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment it puzzles me mightily how can one merge unreferenced aricle into anywhere. --Altenmann >talk 03:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There's a reference at Hewiki. For us that's an easily accessable source. Per NEXIST what matters are the scources. gidonb (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There are no enwiki-acceptable WP:RS at hewiki; I did consult before nomination. --Altenmann >talk 16:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Plus that is only a more accessible source. gidonb (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Asher Mizrahi. His recordings of this piece are mentioned in several places: https://opensiddur.org/profile/asher-mizrahi/, https://www.pizmonim.org/book.php?recording=1890 but best if it is part of the fuller article.Lynngol (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Asher Mizrahi as the best WP:ATD option in these circumstances where there are sources that are insufficient for notability but for which there is an obvious merge target. Alansohn (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, but a merge is preferable to deletion or BLAR. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 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.

Keep On Ramblin'

Keep On Ramblin' (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 fails NALBUM and GNG. Of the sources in the article, Genius and Discogs are both user-generated, and the Medium review is self-published by a non-subject matter expert. The last of these was republished in The Winchester Family Business, which I'm dubious of due to a lack of an editorial policy; in any case, no changes were made, leading me to wonder whether this actually lends any reliability. Aside from that, there's some coverage from Nerds & Beyond (1 and 2), but again I'm unsure of their reliability since I can't find any editorial policy and both articles appear to be by a self-identified college student. Bringing here for help evaluating sources; I would personally be fine with a redirect to Radio Company as an alternative to deletion. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Radio Company (duo) as an alternative to deletion because the page on it's own fails WP:Album. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Radio company (duo) is itself a redirected page. So, any more supports for a redirect to Radio company?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Radio Company as the best WP:ATD option in these circumstances where there are sources that are insufficient for notability but for which there is an obvious redirect target. Alansohn (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Radio Company The album doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM due to lack of independent coverage, but a redirect is appropriate within the artist’s main page.Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:49, 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.

Alfred Freeman (Essex cricketer)

Alfred Freeman (Essex cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only one source, does not pass WP:GNG, WP:Notability (sports), or the Cricket notability guideline. No reliable sources available on the web. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 22:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 22:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I will note that I attempted a PROD but was told to do an AfD instead. Don't know if that matters but I will note it in case it does. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 22:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Sport spam. One appearance in a non-international first class match is by no imagination notable and shame on anyone who says otherwise. Does not meet WP:NCRIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Shame on me, I guess. I've expanded the article. JustJamie820 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I still don't think he is notable. The PDF only mentions him in less than a paragraph, and most of the other sources come from the same website. Also, the ESPN source is not in depth, and, based on the title, the CricketArchive pages are probably stats mostly. I'm guessing because I don't have access (paywall). 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You haven't added anything to show notability. All you've done is provided running commentary on the one match he played, where he scored one run and took no wickets, and added content about his relatives, ignoring WP:INVALIDBIO, and his unremarkable post-cricket career. Obi2canibe (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Maybe Redirect to Edward Freeman (cricketer, born 1860) and add a short paragraph there about the other cricketers in the Freeman family - if Edward is notable? There's a paragraph on Alfred in David Lemmon's The Book of Essex Cricketers p65, but the next entry is for Edward and talks about several players in the same family. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  If a redirect is better (which I'm getting the impression it might be), I can think of a better redirect than that: One to List of Essex County Cricket Club players. I think the latter is more the standard for situations like this, more so than to a fellow family member. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed and also I'm not so sure about the notability of Edward either honestly. I might AfD that one too, it seems to be in about the same scenario. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 20:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  I did find an obituary of Edward Freeman on the British Newspapers Archive; it's not a lot about him, but it's something. If only I could find one for Alfred. Anyway, perhaps this is an issue that I have with my own editing tendencies, but I'd probably attempt to work on Edward's article as well if I felt I had the time and energy to do so. (And if I wasn't committing myself to "save" two other cricket articles at AfD.) -- JustJamie820 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, it's quite a noble pursuit. And, since it already appears closer than this one, I may go for such a dive myself as part of WP:AFDBEFORE. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 21:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete it. He played only one First class match that doesn't qualify him for NSPORTS.--Zne0us Phenix (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Just played one first class match. Probably a non-notable cricketer. Doesn't meet basic criteria WP:SPORTBASIC and even inclusion for cricketers WP:NCRICKET. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 16:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect to List of Essex County Cricket Club players. This article about an individual does not pass WP:NATHLETE. Aneirinn (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Essex County Cricket Club players as WP:ATD-R. Jpeeling (Talk) 16:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as ATD. Vestrian24Bio 05:40, 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.

Principality of Chechnya

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

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

This article should be deleted because it is a historical hoax. It claims that a huge, unified "Principality of Chechnya" existed in the 16th century and conquered Dagestan, which is historically false. Furthermore, the text mentions wars with the Kalmyks between 1545 and 1555, but the Kalmyk people did not even arrive in the North Caucasus region until the 17th century. The sources are either fabricated or misused to create a fictional country, map, flag, and history that never existed in academic history. Also, Shikh-Murza Okotsky did not rule the state of "Principality of Chechnya" (as it doesn't exist), he is documented as ruling the Okotskaya Land as a prince. Liptink0 (talk) 21:14, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Penn65 talk in solidarity 02:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Beyond the excellent point made by the nominator regarding the Kalmyks, the timeline is a complete mess. The article claims the state was formed under Shikh Okotsky, yet attributes the entire 1545–1555 war narrative to a legendary figure named "Zokk". Shikh-Murza Okotsky was an actual historical figure active in the late 16th century (documented in Russian archives in the 1580s–1590s). The article synthesizes completely different eras and timelines to invent a unified kingdom that mainstream Caucasus scholarship does not recognize. This confusion stems directly from the article's main source, Amin Tesaev, who is known for attempting to reconstruct medieval history using localized family/teip folklore and unverified oral manuscripts. In fact, this is a wider systemic problem, as the exact same issues can be found in other Wikipedia articles based on Tesayev and similar fringe writers (Akhmadov, etc.), such as Chechen Sultanate and Gayur-khan. While these oral traditions are culturally interesting, Wikipedia cannot treat tales of questionable origin as mainstream historical facts, which is why this article should be deleted. BlueWave04 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEWLLM, based upon the above discussion, the oddly-worded text, the hallucinations, and Occam's razor. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 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.

Bromine test

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

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

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Bromine number § Bromine test

 – FaviFake (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This is similar to Iodine number. I propose to merge the article Bromine test to Bromine number to be consistent with its iodine counterpart. --taweethaも (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Support merge, but I think in the opposite direction. The quantitative bromine number article seems to have less content specifically about its stated topic, and none of that content it appears to be cited, whereas the qualitative bromine test article has lots of content, with cites, on its topic. The quantitative test seems like just an enhanced version of the qualitative test ("measure what you're doing"), so it could be a subsection of it. I don't know much about petroleum chemistry, but qual-analysis of organic compounds was until recently a major field of study and teaching at the advanced-highschool and intro-undergrad levels, so that's another reason I see the qual topic as the primary home for this content. I see you also found the bromine water article. That's another topic related to the qual test, so having an actual qual article helps clarify how to build the web among articles rather than pointing to a section. DMacks (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Reverse merge – per DMacks FaviFake (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Chemistry-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Bromine number: There have been a few "bromine tests" used over the years, in food testing, in inorganic chemistry, and as a pregnancy test . From what i read, the article describes what's used in the gasoline analysis as the nom describes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all, @Spiderone, DMacks, FaviFake, and Oaktree b:. I do not have a strong opinion for content to be in "halogen test" or "halogen number" or both. However, I do want to have consistency for both bromine and iodine. I can help tidy up, add some missing content and remove unsourced materials if the community form a consensus into one of the three directions below.

1. Keep "halogen test" only (merge "halogen number" to "halogen test" because the number is a result of the test.)
2. Keep "halogen number" only (merge "halogen test" to "halogen number" because the number is more important or meaningful but the test is trivial.)
3. Keep both "halogen test" and "halogen number" with appropriate internal links and non-redundant content in both. These concepts can be standalone by themselves like many other technical terms in science. Interwiki links for both terms ("test" and "number") exist and we can just follow the international trend.
4. Create one article Bromine and iodine tests / Bromine and iodine vales with sections for corresponding content from potentially four articles. Comparison (indication for use of the two tests?) can be made and redundancy (the need to test for unsaturated compounds) can be combined. This is not probably not the way to go.

--taweethaも (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Given there are only two halogens in play, I don't think the consistency argument is very strong. Instead, I'm looking at the merits of the articles themselves, which is where I'm seeing a different focus of the main citely/notable aspect for one halogen vs the other. Thinking about a similar type of naming pattern-set, I looked broadly at our chemistry articles see generally article-centric independence for "___ reagent"/"___ reaction" (a major thing a chemical does) vs "___ test" (a major reason someone does it) page-naming in cases where all both topics are covered in a unified page. DMacks (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion, regarding deciding which one to be merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@BhikhariInformer: Thank you. I have added a link to this discussion from all affected articles & their talk pages. I agree with DMacks and just realize another complication. "Iodine test" commonly means iodine test for starch rather than unsaturation test. --taweethaも (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Penn65 talk in solidarity 01:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Its redundant with the other article. Historyexpert2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Historyexpert2, could you clarify which one of the two articles you think should be deleted as redundant? Or are you merely saying that one of them should, without caring which one? DMacks (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Bromine test Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Congenital limb deformities

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

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

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Congenital limb deformities § Renaming and Merging with Dysmelia

 – FaviFake (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Merging with Dysmelia

Hello, I'd like to propose merging this article into the article for dysmelia, and further rename this article to congenital limb difference (vs. deformity). These articles seem to be referencing an identical or at least similar concepts, and it may be confusing to users attempting to search up this condition. Further, from google searches, limb difference seems to be the preferred / more common term. Alternatively, the page may be changed to just "limb difference" and include information about acquired limb difference as well.

Other suggestions:

Redirect "limb difference" to this page

Find more sources relating to limb differences. Here are some that could be used to start:

https://www.cdc.gov/birth-defects/about/limb-reduction-defects.html

https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions-treatments/congenital-limb-differences

https://amputee-coalition.org/resources/pediatric-limb-loss-and-limb-difference-an-introduction-for-parents/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877132724001180

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25479783/ BlorborosOuroboros (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Congenital limb difference. Dysmelia is not much more common than limb difference in the medical literature, judging from a quick and dirty search. Congenital and acquired limb differences seem different enough to me to get different articles, but I read a lot of developmental biology and genetics papers so this could be nerdview on my part. proton donor ^H+ 16:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree we should have different pages for congenital and acquired limb differences, thanks for the suggestion BlorborosOuroboros (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input regarding which one is the best merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

In terms of which one should merged into which, dysmelia seems to have more content and has 7 other languages, while congenital limb deformities has none, so we should probably merge into dysmelia BlorborosOuroboros (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Penn65 talk in solidarity 01:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we should create one article called limb difference for now, and then possibly split into different articles for congenital and acquired limb differences later if the article ends up too long. I will also note the term limb difference has been used on Wikipedia elsewhere (namely the category Sportspeople with limb difference), so it would make sense to keep the language consistent with that. BlorborosOuroboros (talk) 22:13, 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.

Stephen Sharer

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

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Sources are either primary (his YouTube channel, Pace University, all the sources about him being a speaker), brief mentions (E!, Insidenova) or based on largely on what he says. The first Business Insider article is the best source (Internet Archive) but still most of it is based on what he says and even so, it only one source. I could not find a free copy of the second Business Insider article but based on the title it appears to mostly about Lizzy Capri. I checked Google and ProQuest but did not find any usable sources. Google was mostly social media and ProQuest only had a handful of press releases/announcements. S0091 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related AfD discussions. S0091 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the first AfD (which I did not notice previously), Expertwikiguy, a prolific UPE sock farm, !voted Keep so something to aware of. S0091 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Couldn't find any evidence of WP:NBIO. Most secondary sources don't meet WP:BASIC. Article also has been WP:REFBOMBED with unreliable sources. 「NuggFrog」 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Article is based heavily on unreliable sources (does not meet WP:RS). Does not meet WP:NBIO. TheProEditor11 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While most of the !votes at the first AfD were not policy based, there was just enough that I think getting at least a little more consensus that sources are inadequate is the right thing to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep - there are actually three good sources: Business Insider, NBC4, and People. Whether it's significant coverage is questionable. I had not followed him, but a couple of accounts that I do follow, follow him. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  The NBC4 is an announcement about his tour dates and People is mostly quotes from the YouTube video he shared, In a video shared Monday on his YouTube account... so not independent. S0091 (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Penn65 talk in solidarity 01:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete most of the sources are unreliable and the reliable sources are not the in-depth coverage needed to satisfy notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 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.

The Audience Engine

The Audience Engine (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 article about a proposed product that never actually came into existence. I fail to see why we need an article on something of this nature. Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Finance, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nomination. This obscure would-be product never came to fruition, so how is it notable? No reason why is given in the article. TH1980 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to WFMU. Information is sourced; product is apparently in use by WFMU. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
• Hi! the notable thing that came out of this project is Spinitron! Spinitron is the underpinnings of the playlist system on hundreds of non commercial stations in the US, far more than just WFMU where it originated. It is a pretty important thing for both stations and listeners. My view is it ultimately deserves a page of its own and I had even been contemplating a larger scale project linking participating station wikipedia pages to their spinitron playlists as that's much more practical and informative than the Nielsen Audio db to most. Earlier this year on the talk page I posted something similar: what's important in this page should be put on a updated page about Spinitron. Happy to help make that happen in some way! Postres (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"...WFMU where it originated." Spintron did not originate at WFMU. Auricle Communications (aka: WFMU) purchased Spintron in 2016. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Penn65 talk in solidarity 01:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to WFMU as the best WP:ATD option in these circumstances where there are sources that are insufficient for notability but for which there is an obvious merge target. Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to WFMU as per WP:ATD, topic fails notability criteria as a standalone article. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:20, 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.

Chhotubhai Gopalbhai Patel Institute of Technology

Chhotubhai Gopalbhai Patel Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: the first nomination from 2010 ended as "keep" at a time of lower standards–it survived based on "it exists" arguments that no longer fly at AfD in 2026. (And even then, there was a declined PROD before that.) No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Technology, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Uka Tarsadia University#Constituent Institutes, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Found nothing useful in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:21, 30 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.

C. K. Pithawala College of Engineering and Technology

C. K. Pithawala College of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, Technology, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gujarat Technological University#Affiliated colleges, where it's mentioned, as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:12, 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.

B.D. Arts College

B.D. Arts College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Schools, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Delete: ^{(Since this is my first time participating on a AfD discussion...)}

  - First of all, fails the super golden rule ^(WP:42) and the the hard magenta rule ^(WP:GNG).

  - Second, I couldn't find any WP:COVERAGE on B.D Arts College, and the article only relies on an archived, non-independent source from the school's website.

  - Finally, for the reason of not merging, I personally couldn't find any articles that would benefit from a merging of this article. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Couldn't find any useful coverage in additional searches. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Article only contains a short, basic description and on one self-published source from the institution itself.Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:31, 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.

Prajnanananda Institute of Technology & Management

Prajnanananda Institute of Technology & Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: the first nomination from 2017 failed after one day because it apparently was part of a series of mass nominations that went against then-consensus in this topic area. Our standards have only tightened (and previous automatic notability presumptions sunset) in the nine years since then. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Schools, Technology, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Couldn't find any useful coverage in additional searches. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:08, 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.