Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 24

Unreal Engine 6

Unreal Engine 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article lacks significant independent coverage and does not meet the general notability guideline, plus it's way too early to have it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realcosmixyt (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of secondary coverage, will likely be more information and announcements coming shortly. Besides why is too early even an argument? Even if UE6 was cancelled, the event of its cancellation would probably be notable enough for an article. Lflin16 - :) (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 6, WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:SUSTAINED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, that might acutally be better than deleteing ReelCosmix (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Deleting wouldn't make sense in my view A) it's a believable search term B) it can be recreated later when it inevitably becomes article worthy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, as Zxcvbnm put it. Definitely TOOSOON and a failure of SIGCOV. I think when you're citing the GitHub and the EULA, it's a sign that one is scraping the barrel in terms of coverage.

I can find coverage of this Rocket League teaser from the last 24 hours. However, it's not significant coverage of UE6 itself. It focuses on the event itself and other stuff about Rocket League. --AntiDionysius (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Unreal Engine. Textbook WP:TOOSOON, the sources contain next-to-no information on UE6 besides the fact that it was announced. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Unreal Engine is already at version 5.8, and with recent teasers and talks from Epic Games about the release of UE6, it's better to keep the article and instead of deleting it we could just sate that it's upcoming. Riverskysun (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Software versions are not decimals. 5.8 has nothing to do with 6. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Unreal Engine per WP:TOOSOON and no SIGCOV at all. Additionally, as AntiDionysius pointed out, when 2/5 of the sources are primary I doubt the subject meets notability in the first place. A412 is also correct, version 5.8 ≠ version 6.0. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Unreal Engine. Insufficient independent coverage. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom TechnoESP (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge - per WP:TOOSOON, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:SIGCOV. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge on the grounds on WP:TOOSOON. This could well fit within the Unreal Engine article as is. CaptainGalaxy 18:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge - article was created too soon - likely years too soon. FlammablePizza (talk) 03:33, 31 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.

Aurora (chain)

Aurora (chain) (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 like a WP:LLMT of a page on uk.wiki. At best the referencing code has been imported to en.wiki without sufficient checking that the references meet standards here, at worst an llm has been used improbable dates include "Retrieved 2023-09-03" for a page created in 2026 JMWt (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ukraine. JMWt (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I translated this page. I used the translation tool, and the sources were added automatically. I corrected the sources that were imported incorrectly. Could you please let me know how I can improve the article? I checked the sources, and they all appeared to be relevant and compliant with the rules. I did not use an LLM for the list of sources; they were imported automatically during the translation process. The Red Fairy (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

you write the page by hand, in the normal way and you add sources in the usual way. If you had done this then the code would not look as it does. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Like what? I translated the text and left the source links as they were. I’ve just checked again — all the links work and lead to proper sources. Could you please clarify what exactly I did wrong? The Red Fairy (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

And have you read the sources (in the original language, not a machine translation of them)? Do they support the claims that you are citing to them? Did you not read the sources before using them? --Gurkubondinn 01:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. There were a lot of Ukrainian media + Aurora site. It looked allright The Red Fairy (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per WP:COMPETENCE, properly attributed translation, no AI hallucinations, no issues with references, no valid reason for deletion. Disruptive nom. --Cavarrone 07:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  no. There are issues with the references, the code has been copy&pasted from another language wiki. There is a valid reason for delete, which is that insufficient care has been made when starting a page with reference code which has simply been dumped from elsewhere.

  I do not have to waste time proving that AI has been used, the fact is that this is an obvious error that has not been corrected, which points to the introduction of other slop which I cannot immediately identify.

  The topic may well be notable, the references may well be usable. That's all by-the-by if it has not been written by a human. The solution is to rewrite the page line by line and reference by reference. Because bad human edits are always better than machine edits and cut&paste. That's it. JMWt (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry no, we do not delete articles just because the access date matches the date of the original translated page. But thanks for confirming me you have no identified any actual issue with the page, its factuality and its sourcing. --Cavarrone 08:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  wrong. Many pages are deleted on a regular basis because uncorrected errors are identified from clearly copy&pasted code. Thank you for your view on this but it is factually wrong. JMWt (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Many pages are deleted on a regular basis because uncorrected errors are identified from clearly copy&pasted code. Sure. The point is that here you provided no uncorrected error. Cavarrone 09:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Retrieval dates are wrong. This comment is therefore also incorrect and yes pages are deleted for errors that I have identified here. JMWt (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Lol! Again, we do not delete articles just for trivialities like the access date matching the date of the original translated page. Especially as the creator confirmed to have double-checked the sources. See WP:Deletion is not cleanup. And see WP:POINTY. You are spending way more time here trying to prove a point than it would to simply check the sources and fix the dates. Cavarrone 10:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  It’s not trivial and yes we do. I understand that you don’t like it, but we do delete articles for having incorrect dates in the referencing code. Thanks and I will not be saying this again. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe you should revisit your failed noms like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent-A-Girlfriend season 5 or like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JOEN Inc. Cavarrone 10:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  That is most certainly not "a triviality" and saying that the problem is "wrong dates" shows a lack of understanding the issue. Unless I have missed something, the creator has only checked that the sources exist, not that they support the claims they used the sources for. Citing sources that you have not read is a WP:VERIFIABILITY problem. --Gurkubondinn 02:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  I checked the links. I’m from Ukraine myself. Aurora is a huge and very well-known retail chain there. They provide significant support to the military and run many marketing campaigns, which is why virtually everyone knows them.

  The publications listed are also well-known Ukrainian media outlets, and they contain confirmation of those facts. So I’m not entirely sure why there was a concern that I hadn’t checked them. I may have made a mistake by not updating the links themselves, but I did go through them.

  TSN, RAU, MCToday, and others are quite established media outlets with editorial policies. And yes, the facts were confirmed. The Red Fairy (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  no AI hallucinations

  This cannot be stated without reading the sources, in Ukrainian. Which requires an understanding of Ukrainian. The wrong access dates indicate that this was not done to begin with. You cannot adequately translate a body of work without having a deep understanding of both the source language and the target language. Translations are not a trivial task, and translating a text often takes more work and more time than writing the original text. This is why machines translations (especially LLM-translations) of articles are a bad idea, you can't know if the LLM has filled in the blanks or made something up without going back and reading the sources in the original language and verified every single claim.

  Disruptive nom.

  No, it isn't. Please don't accuse other editors, who are contributing in good faith and working to uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia, of being disruptive. --Gurkubondinn 02:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment All the sources work and seem relevant at a glance so referencing wise I don't see an issue. Not updating access dates for translated articles is a sign to dive a bit deeper, but there needs to be something more concrete (like sources being DOA or being completely irrelevant) to try to delete on that ground. However, the article reads very promotional, and it needs heavy editing from the translated version (perhaps to the level of TNT). Jumpytoo Talk 19:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep the sources are really good, national major ones, including Forbes, reliable and mostly independent. No garbage media. Bad ai usage and machine translation or transportation from one language to another it not the biggest problem if the subject is notable. Here is the case that the subject is clearly notable, but not well sourced and not well wikified. Must be cleaned-up. Jazzbanditto (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep it civil.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to delete it, I agree there are problems on that page, a lot of information is probably translated literally word for word from Ukrainian without adaptation to English, but it can be edited, creating a new page is gonna be a lot harder and a lot more work, so it’s better to keep it and correct the mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenic town (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This article definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Obviously RSes written in other languages count for notability purposes and given how large this chain is, I doubt this is even all of the sources covering the chain. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep Definetely needs some work but I see no reason to delete it. TechnoESP (talk) 15:05, 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.

Psychedelic animation

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

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

I propose merging because it is a subcategory of the article as everything in this article is just saying it is a category of psychedelic film which it then explains. PeriodicEditor (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. PeriodicEditor (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging to what?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: the AfD tag on the article says this is a merger to Psychedelic film (it would appear this also needs to be reiterated in nomination pages as well). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 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!} 23:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, just because the nominator couldn't be bothered to put together a proper nomination or respond to followups. No reason for us to put too much thought into this if they didn't. MediaKyle (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I did not get notified about the followups PeriodicEditor (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This is certainly a page that needs to be expanded, there is no question about that but a quick glance shows that there are sources that can expand it that bolster notability and should be included. The page should be retained and expanded through the normal editing process as a WP:ATD^[1][2][3][4] Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:49, 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.

Tales of Toyland

Tales of Toyland (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 Enid Blyton Enid Blyton bibliography#1944 because: unfortunately I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources about this book. I've searched through newspapers.com, ProQuest, Gale, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, and only found passing mentions or other books with similar titles, so a redirect to the author would be prudent. A previous BLAR has been contested by the page creator. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related AfD discussions. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Enid Blyton bibliography#1944 (a better target, the main Blyton article doesn't mention the book). I searched some of what the nom did, and a few others, and found nothing. Also searched the British Newspaper Archive and there were some short mentions but nothing substantial. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that that's a better target - nom has been updated. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Rudd, David (2000). Enid Blyton and the Mystery of Children's Literature. New York: Palgrave. pp. 67–69, 143, 216. ISBN 0-333-74718-6. Retrieved 2026-05-12 – via Internet Archive.

     The book's index notes: "Tales of Toyland 67–9, 143, 216". The book notes on page 67: "This seemed quite an alarming thought — that some toys were chosen and taken away to be the playthings of children. However, an earlier series of linked stories by Blyton, ‘Tales of Toyland’, made the links more explicit, and were clearly the basis of the Noddy books.’ It is this earlier story that I shall describe in some detail, before pointing out the links. We begin by meeting a Sailor doll, at first nameless, who lives in a big nursery with other toys. He is unhappy because the others don’t like his jolliness, nor the fact that he sings loud, ‘yoho’ songs. At Christmas, a fairy-doll — also anonymous at first — arrives from the top of the Christmas tree. She too is resented by the others. They think she does not belong in their toy-cupboard. The Sailor and the fairy-doll pair up — naming each other Jolly and Tiptoe respectively - and escape to Toyland."

  2. Gustafson, Terry. "Tales of Toyland". Enid Blyton Society. Archived from the original on 2012-07-17. Retrieved 2026-05-12.

     The review notes: "Just over 90 pages make up this delightful tale and when I first read it many years ago it seemed longer. The book begins with an invitation in rhyme from the main characters to join them on a picnic in the woods where we'll all play hide and seek and partake of good food and lemonade. ... The final chapters involve change. The soldiers move out because a grand fort has been built for them, Bruiny the bear needs a home, and finally we reach an extremely sad part which might call for a box of handkerchiefs to be placed within easy reach. Could anyone believe that Father Christmas might cause distress? Could his presence create consternation for Tiptoe and Jolly?"

  3. Less significant coverage:
     1. Rudd, David (2008). "From Froebel Teacher to English Disney: The Phenomenal Success of Enid Blyton". In Briggs, Julia; Butts, Dennis; Grenby, M.O. (eds.). Popular Children's Literature in Britain. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. p. 263. ISBN 978-1-84014-242-6. Retrieved 2026-05-12 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: ""Blyton was certainly responding to requests for a Disney-style production, the character having similarities to Disney's Pinocchio, especially given that Noddy had been created by 'Old Man Carver'. There is also the presence of a cat - not in Collodi's original - but very like Figaro in Disney's animated version. But Blyton was not only exploiting contemporary influences, she was also reaching back to her own earlier work, and in particular to 'Tales of Toyland', with its adventures of a sailor doll (Jolly) who lives in a nursery together with a fairy-doll, Tiptoe. Unwanted, they run away to Toyland, to which they are directed by 'a brownie who lives in the wood' (p. 21). He shows them a train to Toyland, where they journey in a crowded carriage, only to be refused entry on arrival because Tiptoe is not a toy. Adopting disguises, they manage to get in, but still have nowhere to live. Then a policeman advises them to build a house of their own, from bricks - and they come to live next to a teddy bear. For anyone who knows the first Noddy book, the above will be very familiar; and there are other familiar characters, too, like a Skittle Family, a Wobbly Man, a Clockwork Clown and a 'fat clockwork policeman'. Here, substantially, is the first Noddy book, some seven years before its more thoughtful — corporate — realisation."

     2. Webb, Carolyn (1997-08-17). "A century on, Blyton has the last laugh on critics". The Sunday Age. Factiva sage000020011008dt8h003ds. NewsBank 11BC4E20B836F5F0. ProQuest 367184743.

        The book notes: "A decade ago, bookshop owners hid copies of Blyton's 'Tales of Toyland' because, said the critics, the golliwogs belittled black people; Noddy and Big Ears were homosexuals, and Tessie the bear was too timid for a female."

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

  Cunard (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Per the sources shared above and my own google searches it seems the book passes notability guidelines for WP:Notability (books) so can be a stand alone page separate from it's author's. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 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!} 23:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep as per @Cunard TechnoESP (talk) 15:06, 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.

Next Indian general election in Tamil Nadu

Next Indian general election in Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article, no details specific to this election in TN are available yet. Vestrian24Bio 10:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Tamil Nadu. Vestrian24Bio 10:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 23:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The text of this article feels uncomfortably synthized with little human intervention, and just tries to dryly summarize a previous article, except here, describing an election that hasn't been scheduled or even have bare 'this is where the parties stand now' analysis you usually see leading off these articles. Nathannah • 📮 23:43, 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.

Martina Dimoska

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

Martina Dimoska (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 person is notable enough, the article seems to be written in a promotional tone by the person herself and the quality of sources is highly susceptible. Please note that the article has already been deleted, so it is very strange to me that its re-creation was accepted and it was moved from the draft to the main namespace. A detailed breakdown of why I think the article should be deleted is presented in turn.

The opening sentence states that she is an aerospace engineer, analogue astronaut, space entrepreneur and science communicator, but the article's body does not mention at all how she contributed to these fields. Instead, it consists merely of chronology of overhyped personal achievements that cite personal announcements on the social networks (for instance, the "NASA Career" sub-section cites a personal announcement on Linkedin). Furthermore, a large portion of the article concerns with involvement in NGOs, some UN programmes and participation in NASA hachathons. The article mentions that she had won first prize in the NASA Space Apps Challenge Skopje and later joined as a mentor. NASA International Space Apps Challenge is an event that takes place every year in thousands of different locations around the globe, so this is barely an achievement that makes someone significant for a Wikipedia article. I struggle to find any significance in Dimoska is a National Point of Contact for North Macedonia at the Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC). either (wow, point of contact). Next, the "Awards and recognition" section is not convincing at all. The first recognition listed is that she was selected for the ASCEND Diverse Dozen by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). I took a look at the official website to notice that the institute selects one person per country every year, so this is definitely not an outstanding recognition that should be included in a specifically dedicated section in someone's Wikipedia article. There is also the sentence Early April 2026, Dimoska was captured on CNN and USA Today during her new role at NASA cheering on the Artemis II Splashdown on April 10, 2026.. Finally, the extant category trees do not signify that her fields are relevant. Note that Category:Analogue astronauts (or Category:Analog astronauts) and Category:Space entrepreneurs do not exist.

Apart from the article's quality, it should be mentioned that she publicly celebrated the creation of her Wikipedia article on her Facebook profile, which further supports the belief that she might have been involved in the creation of this article, and that there is a picture of her on Wikimedia Commons describing her as a beauty pageant. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:22, 30 April 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 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Engineering, Spaceflight, and North Macedonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - please note that the person subject to this AfD is different to the Martina Dimoska being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martina Dimoska Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 30 April 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 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Do you have any proof that this article is an autobiography and thus a violation of conflict of interest? We should not make such accusations without evidence. Perhaps, you should have tried to talk with the editor who created the article and should have consulted WP:COIN too. I agree that the article has issues, but issues do not get resolved with deletion. Notability is indeed questionable. Many of the sources about her are news sources, consisting mostly of interviews. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• @StephenMacky1: I don't claim (only suspect) it's an autobiography or that it's the primary reason for deletion. However, since the article cites her personal announcement on Linkedin as a source for her work at the NASA Johnson Space Center and, considering that such announcements on Linkedin are visible only for connections, it's clear that the editor is, at least, someone who's connected with her and thus the use of the autobiography template on the top of the page is fully justified. As for the rationale for deletion, please carefully read my introductory comment. I agree that the article has issues, but issues do not get resolved with deletion. Did you actually read the article? For an experienced editor, this is a textbook example of a biographical article that requires speedy deletion. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, such announcements are publicly available on LinkedIn (probably as long as someone has an account there) and one does not need to be connected to see them. If this article was supposed to be speedily deleted, then we would not have an AfD. I know of articles who were autobiographies until they were improved, as well as articles who are still autobiographies, yet have remained on Wikipedia. I am not opposed to deletion though. I am just wondering if the article can be salvaged. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I also prefer salvaging the article rather than deleting it, but I'm struggling to find reliable sources demonstrating notability. Most of the sources about her in Macedonian or English are interviews about how what she's doing is great and pioneering job (this doesn't include official websites of the organisations that she's a member of). There are few third-party sources documenting that she's the first analogue astronaut from the Balkans (see this), but I'm a bit sceptical that this is really something notable that warrants a Wikipedia article (we probably don't have a specific category with articles about other analogue astronauts for a reason). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

This reply is to an older version of the comment above: But then we have an article about the first Armenian Analog Astronaut Hanna Harutyunyan. We also have articles about Kristine Atienza, Anima Patil-Sabale and other people that went on Analog Missions. I think that the solution for this is creating an article for Mr. Owolabi Salis as a First Astronaut from Nigeria, instead of deleting articles because according to specific person's judgment those people did less than a person that doesn't have an article about them. Kiril's mom (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment:I also agree that this article has issues. But those Issues look like they can be fixed. For example, the issue with pursuing master's degree on International Space University does not have any citations. I've tried looking around and found that on International Space University's Library there is paper published under her name and under Master of Space Studies ISU Program.

About her NASA Career, I went on LinkedIn since that was the source, and I saw under her profile verifications (those can be accessed by clicking on the name on a LinkedIn profile) this -

"NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Verified using work email in April 2026". So definitely she is working at NASA, since LinkedIn verification process requires her to have nasa.gov email, but the actual position can't be verified for now, so my suggestion is to improve this article.

Also, for the point about Analog Astronauts. I see that there isn't an article about that, but they are clearly mentioned in several articles for example in the article about Human Analog Missions people that are participating those missions are mentioned as analog astronauts, so probably there should be Category for those types of people.

And also agree with @StephenMacky1 that instead of making accusations we should contribute to the Wikipedia's mission and improve its articles by editing the references and the content instead of deletion of the whole articles. Kiril's mom (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, meets GNG and has contributed to the space age with her work and organizational achievements. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, in the replies above I've elaborated why I'm behind this decistion. Kiril's mom (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Note to the closer of this Afd: The account Kiril's mom (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a blatant violation of WP:UPOL. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Explanation in the comment bellow

Comment: I will address all the issues mentioned in the deletion request:

• The opening sentence states that she is an aerospace engineer, analogue astronaut, space entrepreneur and science communicator, but the article's body does not mention at all how she contributed to these fields

-In the article bellow for the aerospace engineer part is mentioned that she is currently pursuing a career in NASA Jhonson as a Human Systems Program Integrator, I suggest instead of deleting the article to change the top line to this Title.

-Analogue Astronaut, as according to the Analog Human Mission, people participating in those missions are usually called Analog/Analogue Astronauts, in this Article there are several missions like that mentioned bellow.

-space entrepreneur and science communicator, under Personal Life there is a mentioned social media handle "astro_smarta" under that handle I found multiple online social media platforms where she is doing science communication covering the Artemis, Space and other STEM topics.

• for instance, the "NASA Career" sub-section cites a personal announcement on Linkedin

-LinkedIn is a Professional social media where for every Job Experience mentioned there you can verify it using work email. After careful analysis of her Profile (that can be done by visiting her profile which is public and clicking on verification symbol next to her name), I found that one of her verifications is actually done with nasa.gov email which is verifying the information about her work there.

• Furthermore, a large portion of the article concerns with involvement in NGOs, some UN programmes and participation in NASA hachathons.

It's not some NGOs, but huge NGOs in the Space Sector as SGAC which is a UN Body where she is a National Point of Contact.

International Astronautical Federation published several Papers where she is Author or Co-Author. IAF is one of the biggest Space Organizations ever.

And the participation in NASA hackathons, is not participation but organization in close collaboration with NASA Space Centers with public Agreements hosted on nasa.gov website between the center and her. Agreement with Ames, Agreement with Glenn

• Early April 2026, Dimoska was captured on CNN and USA Today during her new role at NASA cheering on the Artemis II Splashdown on April 10, 2026

- For the CNN on the Archived video 48th second you can see her in the Houston Control Center Room

For the USA Today check the 3rd photo on this post that's cited.

• Apart from the article's quality, it should be mentioned that she publicly celebrated the creation of her Wikipedia article on her Facebook profile

- This doesn't confirm anything. If I publish a blog post about someone and he finds it amazing and celebrates it does that mean that he/she created it? Vrca Trfnva (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC) Strike sock Blue-Sonnet 05:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC) — Vrca Trfnva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. I agree with all the arguments above.

NASA employs some 18 000 people, and not all of them are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. The awards / merits are not something meeting those criteria either. Milentie Pokojni (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of available independent, reliable, in-depth sources (or lack thereof) is needed to determine consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: Some of the information below may already have been mentioned on the article’s Talk page, but I wanted to summarize my overall perspective regarding this AfD discussion.

TL;DR: Keep

Comment:

-I partially agree with the original AfD nomination in that the article was not in ideal condition and required substantial improvement. However, I disagree with the conclusion that the article should be deleted due to lack of notability.

My reasoning for supporting retention is the following::

1. The article has significantly improved since the AfD nomination.

The current version is materially different from the earlier revision that prompted the deletion request. Several issues initially raised have already been addressed through improved sourcing, restructuring, and cleanup.

2. The sourcing is now considerably stronger and more independent.:
The article currently relies on coverage and references from organizations and publications such as Forbes, Bloomberg, ESA, University of North Dakota, Space Insider, Macedonian American Alumni Association, Czech Space Portal, National Geographic, IAF and other independent sources. Multiple aspects of the subject’s career are corroborated across several independent publications, which strengthens verifiability and supports notability under Wikipedia’s general notability standards. Probably this Article has better sourcing and cited resources than 85% of the articles of living people under Category:Macedonian people

3. The subject appears to meet notability standards for a biography: The argument presented in the AfD largely centers on the idea that analog astronaut missions are relatively common and therefore participation alone is insufficient for notability. However, the article’s claim to notability is not based solely on participation in analog missions.

The subject has received independent coverage in connection with:

-Analog astronaut missions and international space initiatives

-Recognition as the first female Balkan analog astronaut in multiple regional and international publications

-Awards and distinctions from notable organizations, including recognition by Bloomberg Adria, Women Entrepreneurs Macedonia, and the International Astronautical Federation

Whether one personally considers these achievements highly significant is secondary to whether the subject has received substantial independent coverage from reliable sources. In my view, the current sourcing demonstrates that threshold.

Let's make some 1:1 analogies using Author's logic and see how absurd that statement is:

- We have Olympic Games every 2 years, for centuries now, in Tokyo there were awarded like 2400 medals. According to All-time Olympic Games medal table there are total 21,683 medals per country (some of the sports are team sports, so there are way more athletes with a medal), so winning a medal is like being 1 out of dozens of thousands people. Yet still we have an Article about Magomed Ibragimov because he is not 1 of dozens of thousands people that won an medal, but he is one of two Macedonians that won a bronze Medal. And following that logic if being a medalist is not enough, than what about Mirjana Boševska who's best result was 17th place. And then what about sportists like Igor Mihajlovski or Marko Dujković and hundreds similar articles about a people who didn't even made a significant result on nation wide tournaments.

- We have thousands of participants on Eurovision through the years, we have a lot of singers that released at least 1 song. So being a singer and releasing 1 single is nothing special. Yet Jana Burčeska's Article is there with 1 single and representing a country on Eurovision.

Additionally, many biography articles on Wikipedia began in a weaker state and were improved over time through collaboration and better sourcing. The fact that an article initially required cleanup is not, by itself, a reason for deletion if the topic demonstrates plausible and verifiable notability.

For these reasons, I believe the article is salvageable, improvable, and should be kept rather than deleted. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I've made a detailed review of all sources used in the article. The results are presented in turn.

1) Navigating Business Opportunities Through Analog Astronaut Missions In The Western Balkans — The author Filip Jovicevic appears to be a non-staff member of Forbes, so this is not a reliable source per WP:FORBESCON.

2) On the ground at UND but 63.4 million miles away — UND Today is not an independent source when it comes to news articles about their university students, including Martina Dimoska, so this is not a reliable source.

3) First Female Balkan Analog Astronaut Martina Dimoska Gives TEDx Talk — Space Insider seems like a reputable specialised source publishing content related to the space industry. However, the news article cites TEDx as a source, which has no quality standard or editorial oversight per WP:RSPTED, so this is not a reliable source.

4) Astro sMarta: From a Small Balkan Town to Global Space Leadership — Fact Nama is a platform that advertises the production of content through commercial collaborations on Instagram, so this is definitely not a reliable source.

5) Martina Dimoska — Bloomberg is a reliable source. However, Bloomberg profiles should be taken with caution and shouldn't be used to establish notability as some editors consider them akin to self-published sources (see WP:BLOOMBERGPROFILES).

6) Success Story - MAAA — Macedonian American Alumni Association publishes biographies of its alumni as 'success stories', so this is not an independent source and thus cannot be considered reliable.

7) 3D solar printer improvements and capability comparison with other additive manufacturing technologies — This is a work authored by Martina Dimoska, so it's a primary source.

8) Mission complete: Three UND astronauts conclude Mars simulation — See 2).

9) APICES Mission: Unveiling ICEE.SPACE’s Vanguard in Lunar Exploration and the Extraordinary Team Behind It including Aleš Svoboda — ESA BIC Czech Republic looks like a reliable source until one notices that the news article is unauthored and the editorial language is clearly biased. 'Let’s meet the analog astronauts driving the success of this Martian expedition:' and 'Her proficiency in space communication aids in raising awareness of the mission’s importance and implications for future space exploration.' don't indicate that this is a reliable source.

10) Martina Dimoska - Crew Engineer, Crew Outreach Lead — ICEE.Space is a start-up working in the area of analogue space exploration supported by ESA BIC Czech Republic. So, similarly to 9), this is not a reliable source.

11) APICES Mission: Unveiling ICEE.SPACE’s Vanguard in Lunar Exploration and the Extraordinary Team Behind It including Aleš Svoboda — See 9) and 10).

12) Missions Archive – Lunares Space — This is a directory of human analogue missions mentioning her name twice as she was involved in two analogue missions.

13) Za kilka dni Sławosz Uznański-Wiśniewski poleci w kosmos. Lustrzana, symulowana misja rozpoczęła się już w Pile — National Geographic is a reliable source. However, it only barely mentions her name as a participant in a human analogue mission, so I fail to see how this source supports notability. Moreover, note that there are thousands of biographical articles about scientists on National Geographic, but her biography isn't published there.

14) AstroMentalHealth – Terra Nova mission — This is the same source as 12), but it doesn't mention her name (it's used to cite the name of the mission).

15) Lunares Ambassadors — This source lists her as one of Lunares Ambassadors, which makes it clear that Lunares is not an independent source.

16) Martina Dimoska: Building Humanity’s Next Frontier Emprelle seems to be a reliable magazine on women's empowerment. However, the news article documents an interview that she gave for the magazine, so it's a primary source.

17) From the Balkans to the Stars: The Unbreakable Resilience of Women and Immigrants — Level Up PR is 'a leading PR agency that empowers elite entrepreneurs and brands to craft and elevate their public image'. This is written on the author's personal website, who is also the founder of the PR agency.

18) Мисијата на ОБСЕ во Скопје започна кампања против гласини што ги дискриминираат жените во општеството — Faktor is generally a reliable source, unless it's indicated that the article is paid. However, this news article mentions that Martina Dimoska together with three other women participated in a women's panel in Skopje, so I again fail to see how this source supports notability.

19) λ (Lambda) | Space Apps Challenge — This source doesn't mention her name at all. Furthermore, it seems to be the official website of the App Challenge that she's involved in as a mentor. So, it's not an independent source.

20) Martina Dimoska, the youngest mentor at NASA - Telegraph — This source doesn't mention her name.

21) Location: Mountain View — See 19).

22) ANNEX BETWEEN THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AMES RESEARCH CENTER AND MARTINA DIMOSKA UNDER SPACE ACT UMBRELLA AGREEMENT NO. 39062 (ANNEX NUMBER FOUR) — This is a document that she signed with the Ames Research Center for the Space Apps Challenge event (note that there are thousands of such events taking place across different locations every year).

23) ANNEX NO 3 BETWEEN THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION GLENN RESEARCH CENTER AND MARTINA DIMOSKA UNDER SPACE ACT UMBRELLA AGREEMENT, NO. SAA2-403770 — This is another document that she signed with the Glenn Research Center for the same event as in 22).

24) Средба на претседателот Пендаровски со тимови од Nasa Space Apps Challenge 2023 – Струмица — This is a news article published by the Cabinet of the President Stevo Pendarovski about a meetup that he had with her and the winning teams in the Space Apps Challenge.

25) Advice for Participants: Before and During the Hackathon | 2024 NASA Space Apps Challenge — This is a YouTube video in which she shares a general advices for participants in the Space Apps Challenge.

26) Martina Dimoska: The Astronautical Visionary Redefining Humanity’s Future Beyond Earth — She received the 'Most Iconic Female Personality to Watch in 2025' award from CIO Think Magazine, and they published this article to inform the public about it. Moreover, it seems like a personal interview with her.

27) top100women2025 — Top 100 Aero is the official website of the 'Top 100 Women in Aerospace & Aviation' award that she also received. This is again not an independent source.

28) AIAA Unveils ASCEND Diverse Dozen Op-Eds on Space Sustainability and Environmentalism — This is the official website of an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), which has more than 30,000 members globally, and the cited page mentions her name as a founder of a local NGO aimed at popularising the space science.

29) 2024 ASCEND Day 1: META 01 Diverse Dozen — This is a video published on AIAA's official YouTube channel where she appears as a speaker together with other women.

30) „Блумберг Адрија" топ 50 највлијателни луѓе во регионот во 2023 година — Bloomberg Adria named her one of the 50 most influential people in the region of former Yugoslavia and published an article about it. So, it's again not an independent source.

31) "IAF: The IAF is proud to introduce the 2022 IAF Emerging Space Leaders!". — She was named an emerging space leader by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF), and IAF published an article about the selection on their official website. However significant this is, it's not an independent source.

32) "Досегашни победнички – Жена на годината". — Similarly to the 26)-27) and 30)–31), this is another primary source publishing a list of people who won their award across different categories.

Evidently, the majority of sources cited in the article are primary, self-published or commercial through collaboration. Those mentioned as reliable, such as Forbes and Bloomberg, are basically non-reliable per Wikipedia's policies. Finally, the existence of articles about other people is not an argument that an article should exist about this person (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you think that those articles qualify for deletion, you're encouraged to nominate them for deletion. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's go though the sources 1 by 1:

1. This source can be replaced if it does not meet the reliability standards under WP.

2. The UND article appears to have been used to verify participation in an analog mission rather than to establish independent notability. The article also discusses broader mission activities involving external collaborators. After my research I found out that Martina is not their student, in this article, they are covering a similar mission but done by the Colombian Air Force, does this mean that the Air Force are their students also?

3. The Space Insider article appears to be independently written by the author, while referencing the TEDx talk as part of the coverage rather than relying on TEDx itself as the source.

4. This source can also be replaced if it doesn’t meet the standards.

5. Per WP, Bloomberg profiles may be used cautiously for uncontroversial factual information. The source was not intended to establish notability independently, but rather to support basic biographical details.

6. The Macedonian American Alumni Association article was an independent alumni feature rather than self-published material. That’s the same as the American Economic Association independently covering a story about an Economist.

7. The citation was intended to verify educational background and participation in the ISU program, rather than to cite Martina Dimoska’s authored work itself.

8. See 2.

9. The article is independently authored and published through ESA BIC Czech Republic-related channels. While the language may be enthusiastic or promotional in tone, I am not certain that tone alone necessarily disqualifies a source from reliability. Also Check the source code of the page, you can clearly see that Petr Mild is the author of that post.

10–11. Similar to point 9. These sources were primarily used to verify mission participation and related activities.

12. This source was intended only to confirm participation in specific LunAres missions.

13. Correct, this source was cited to verify involvement in the mission alongside Aleš Svoboda rather than to establish standalone notability.

14. This source was used to support information about the mission itself, while other sources supported involvement in that mission.

15 - 17. This source can be replaced.

18. This source was intended to support involvement in a women’s rights panel and public engagement activity, not to establish notability independently.

19. This source can be replaced.

20. It is possible that the incorrect link was inserted during editing. The intended source may have been:

this

21. This source was only being used to verify involvement with the event. Covering basic information.

22-23 These official NASA documents were included as supporting evidence of formal collaboration agreements connected to NASA Space Apps Challenge activities conducted through NASA research centers. The agreements involve separate NASA centers, separate annexes, and separate approved locations.

The relevance of these documents is not merely that a Space Apps event occurred, but that the activities were formalized through a NASA Space Act Agreement documentation directly connected to NASA research centers. After reviewing comparable Space Apps locations, I was unable to identify other publicly documented examples of any other local leads operating under equivalent center-linked agreement structures of this type. These sources were therefore intended to support the factual claim that the subject held a distinctive organizational role in establishing and operating NASA Space Apps Challenge locations in collaboration with NASA research centers, rather than serving as routine event participation citations.

I was unable to identify any other comparable publicly documented examples of partnerships between NASA research centers and NASA Space Apps Challenge locations operating under similar agreement structures (versus the thousands claim). If comparable examples exist, I would appreciate seeing them provided here for reference.

24. I assume the Cabinet of the President is notable? The Cabinet of the President would generally be considered a notable institutional source for routine factual verification.

25. This source was cited specifically to support participation as a speaker/advisor in the NASA Space Apps Challenge context.

26. How does it seem like an interview? I’ve gone through the whole article.

27. That’s a confirmation about the award.

28. The name of the article is “AIAA Unveils ASCEND Diverse Dozen”, and this is a source for the ASCEND award. What’s wrong with this?

29. Which again confirms the same information as 28.

30–32. Similarly, these sources were intended to confirm awards and recognitions.

Overall, I agree that some sources should be improved, replaced, or removed where they do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability or independence. However, I believe the majority of the remaining sources are being used appropriately. Once again, this is an article that meets notability, that is in the early stages, and that with time can be improved. This article is simply not for deletion. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, per Randy Kryn above, the article meets all WP:GNG criteria for Notability; it is thus suitable for a stand-alone article, based on significant coverage from reliable sources. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 08:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the various shanigans that have occurred at this discussion, it would be useful if more editors focused on how the sources do or don't establish notability. Courtesy ping to Randy Kryn & Sdsds as experienced editors who suggest it meets GNG without specifying which sources did that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, though I agree with Sdsds that a merge to a hypothetical analog astronaut article would also be appropriate were that to exist. At this point the most visible thing about this individual seems to be the article. Bioconda (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping Barkeep49. Forbes, The Telegraph, NASA, and lots more, some of them features about her and others praising her position in her chosen field. I didn't even read all of that tl;dr post above (if that's not AI then it's a very impressive piece of research, it's got to be AI, no?) which seems to give a proper nod to this page meeting GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Did you read all the discussion here and on the article’s talk page? That Forbes source seems to fail WP:FORBESCON. The Telegraph is not telegraph.co.uk, but telegrafi.com, and it doesn’t mention her name. There’s no reliable source that she’s employed at NASA (note that she needs to be a US citizen to be eligible for it). Instead, it seems like she’s one of several thousand contractors hired every year. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The Telegrafi source is in Albanian and it does discuss her as can be seen here. I guess the English-language link does not work. There were other reliable secondary sources cited in the article, which were removed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, it’s not The Telegraph as pointed out above. I’m shocked that an ‘experienced’ editor participates in an RfD without carefully reading the discussion and checking the sources. As for the actual source (Telegrafi), note that the entire referencing in the article is based on sources in Macedonian, Albanian and Serbo-Croatian with questionable reliability and editorial quality, or in English by non-independent or commercial websites. I fail to find a single independent and reputable English-language source demonstrating why this person’s work makes them notable out of thousands of other people with similar biographies, which shouldn’t be really difficult for a person working for NASA and participating in notable missions. The big truth is that a local influencer with more than 40 thousand followers on the social media and good publicity in the Macedonian media space joined a NASA programme to become one of several thousand contractors that are used to test the functionality of their systems and equipment. The reason why this story gained traction in the local media is largely because it is pertaining to an influencer who allegedly went on to work for NASA (which is not fact-checked and is probably wrong given that one of the main requirements to work for NASA is to be a US citizen and a previous version of the article stated that she only has a green card). All this show with the abuse of multiple single-purpose accounts (with insulting usernames) and multiple IP addresses seems to be part of the agenda. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I fail to find a single independent and reputable English-language source

-Isn't it strange how you fail to find a single independent and reputable English-language source when there are dozens English Articles, from ESA-BIC to Space Insider, University of North Dakota, Global Voices etc.. and there are hundreds from the Balkan Region.

But when it's time for you to write an article about your co-worker [Fact Checked] Anita Angelovska-Bežoska suddenly 10 sources from non independent websites, like the bank in which both of you are working together, and then 1 podcast which is primary source are reputable. It's becoming funny to read your try-hard comments here driven by emotions instead of facts.

allegedly went on to work for NASA (which is not fact-checked)

There is a website/social-media, called LinkedIn, and one of their goals is to confirm that the people are not putting fake organizations on their profiles. That's done by verifying the information and it's a public information for every profile. Here is your fact if you want to check it. And since that's not covered by multiple sources it's not on the Wikipedia Article.

The big truth is that a local influencer with more than 40 thousand followers on the social media and good publicity in the Macedonian media space

I believe parts of this discussion are drifting into speculation. Generalizing regional or Balkan media as inherently unreliable, referring to the subject as a “local influencer,” and speculating about motives does not directly address WP:GNG or source reliability on a case-by-case basis.

This level of sustained focus on disqualifying the article appears unusual. I believe additional community input would help ensure the conversation remains fair. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to continue assuming good faith here about @Kiril Simeonovski, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. At this point, the discussion is starting to feel less like an effort to improve the article and more like an attempt to undermine it based on personal disagreement.

It is also concerning to see criticism of the sourcing in this article from an experienced editor whose own created articles, such as Peter Klibanoff, Glenn W. Harrison, and Ilya Segal, rely on sources that would likely face similar scrutiny, including CV-based sourcing for notability claims.

Kiril, I would encourage focusing on applying standards consistently and approaching this discussion in the spirit of collaborative improvement rather than escalating disputes. The article in question is, in my view, already written and sourced to a higher standard than the ones mentioned above.

I would also encourage directing energy toward constructive improvements, such as strengthening sourcing across related articles, rather than focusing on disputing the efforts of editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia collaboratively. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

An IP address abusing other IP addresses to edit the article and publicly thanking them for the improvements to the article on the talk page is now talking about assuming good faith. Well, alright. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Responding to the ping in the relisting notice, I'll reassert my belief this should be resolved with a keep and provide my perspective on why. First, I have no interest in this person and became aware of the article only after the deletion discussion began; I've now read the article, its talk page, and this discussion. My interest stems from prior involvement in three superficially unrelated articles or article sections, all related to the facilities used for "analog missions" rather than the participants in such missions: Aquarius Reef Base, Space_station#First_advances_and_precursors (related to the "Manned Astronomical Research Station" mockup) and a BLP article related to the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars facility. I believe the encyclopedia as a whole would be greatly improved by the creation of an article about participants in the missions conducted in this type of facility. If that article existed right now, I would not resist a merge of this article into that hypothetical one, and it is the content and sources related to the "Analog astronaut missions" section of this article I believe pass all WP:GNG criteria. The UND Today source is compelling, in that it shows the subject photographed in front of the Inflatable Lunar-Mars Analog Habitat, and named in the photo caption. UND Today is a reliable, non-primary source that establishes the subject's participation in a mission there. That newspaper is "Independent of the subject" in the WP:GNG sense of the phrase. Regarding the report by Dargan that the subject is the "first female Balkan Analog Astronaut", I see no reason to doubt the credibility of this claim. The possibility that reporters like Dargan may merely echo something heard, without obtaining independent confirmation, cannot be eliminated, but the editorial standards to which this publication holds itself are published here: https://thequantuminsider.com/editorial-standards/. Regarding the article's content about the APICES analog mission, https://icee.space/apices/ confirms the article's subject was involved (again with a captioned photo). I won't assert that any person who has ever participated in an analog mission is notable per our guidelines. In contrast a person who is the first from a particular geographic region who is also of a particular gender, and who has clearly participated in two missions, at habitats on two continents, conducted by two independent organizations, does meet the WP:GNG presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article. And again I believe this could be revisited if there were an article listing all persons who have reached this level of notability; until that article exists our encyclopedia is best served by retaining the current article. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This discussion here is pretty ridiculous. I don't understand how someone can refer to the newsletter/website of the institute where the subject goes to school as a "reliable, non-primary source", and I don't understand why this article wasn't nominated for speedy deletion in the first place, with its reliance on primary source, programs, organizational websites, and university newsletters--never mind that the writing was the worst kind of Wikipediafied LinkedIn prose. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  The question we're trying to answer here isn't whether the article is/was well-written; most of us agree it is not. Instead we're asking if the provided sources reliably support the assertion that the subject of the article is sufficiently notable. Regarding the UND Today source, the relevant policy question is well-framed at WP:SPIP: we're looking for a "measure of the attention" the subject of our article has received. Fully recognizing some editors may have little or no interest in the research areas covered by the Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences at UND, I'll link to their page for reference: https://aero.und.edu/space/. Certainly UND has an incentive to promote research done there. For the purposes of WP:SPIP however that does not imply they were incentivized to promote this particular person. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 19:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The '"measure of the attention" the subject of our article has received' is not a compelling argument that supports notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a celebrity directory. Many top universities in the world have bulletins with articles mentioning their students (e.g. Harvard Magazine, Stanford Alumni, Cambridge Alumni Magazine etc.), but it doesn't mean that we should write articles about them all just because they're featured in publications curated by top-ranked universities. Being the 'first from a particular geographic region who is also of a particular gender' isn't a compelling argument either. I doubt that the first Emirati Muslim woman to graduate from Harvard University is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article despite the fact the person has received considerable media attention. You seem to mix up 'prominence' and 'notability'. The person is prominent, but not notable. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Before I write my comment, I would like to clarify that I am the same person as @~2026-27256-83. Following what I believe were false allegations raised by @Kiril Simeonovski, I decided to create a permanent account, which will likely also be more practical for long-term participation on Wikipedia.

First, regarding the “their student” argument: according to both the current article and the available sources, the subject was not studying at the University of North Dakota. She participated there as part of an analog astronaut mission. UND’s ILMAH habitat is not merely a student activity facility, but a research analog environment utilized by universities, private industry, and organizations connected to the broader space sector. For example, UND itself published coverage of Colombian Air Force personnel conducting a mission there, who were likewise not students.

Second, the current argument against notability appears to rely heavily on subjective interpretations of what is considered “important” within a field. Naturally, editors from different professional backgrounds may perceive significance differently. However, Wikipedia’s standards are based on verifiable coverage and demonstrable recognition, not on whether an editor personally considers a field prestigious.

Third, the UND ILMAH mission is only one part of the subject’s broader body of work. The article documents participation in multiple analog astronaut missions conducted across several habitats and organizations, involving different operational and research contexts. In addition, the subject has received recognition and awards from organizations such as the International Astronautical Federation and Bloomberg. The IAF, in particular, is one of the most established and internationally recognized organizations within the global space sector.

I also disagree with the removal of references related to collaborations involving NASA Ames Research Center and NASA Glenn Research Center under Space Act umbrella agreements connected to NASA Space Apps Challenge activities. These are formal agreements involving NASA research centers, and such collaborations are not casually granted to individuals “left and right.”

Finally, I do not believe the comparison to simply graduating from a prestigious university is equivalent. The significance here is not “being the first woman from X region to do Y” in isolation, but building an internationally recognized career in a field that effectively lacks local infrastructure within the subject’s home country. To use an analogy closer to your field: it would be comparable to someone coming from a country without a developed banking sector, yet establishing an internationally recognized banking career and receiving recognition from institutions such as the American Bankers Association. RockyKT (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

After Drmies improved the article by removing poorly sourced and promotional content, the notability of this person is currently hanging on the following facts: i) she commanded the SELENE and TERRA NOVA missions at the LunAres Research Station in Poland, ii) she is described as the first female Balkan analogue astronaut, iii) she is the founder and president of the International Space Alliance (ISA) and iv) she helped establish the first NASA Space Apps hub in Strumica. I'll use Margarita Marinova as a standard article for a female with highly successful career in the field from the same region. Fact i)'s significance is nowhere comparable to that of Marinova's Arctic, Sahara Desert, Mount Kilimanjaro and the Dry Valleys of Antarctica missions. Furthermore, Marinova participated in these missions as an aerospace engineer and visited real non-simulated environments, and the article clearly explains what these missions were about and why they are notable. In contrast, this article doesn't tell anything about the SELENE and TERRA NOVA missions beyond the fact that the person commanded them at the LunAres Research Station in Poland. Given that Marinova's missions evidently precede those of the person whose notability we're discussing, I strongly doubt the veracity and significance of ii). Of course, you can argue that Marinova is an aerospace engineer, not an analogue astronaut, but analogue astronauts are definitely not more notable than aerospace engineers. We're left with facts iii) and iv) that have to support the claim that the significance stems from 'building an internationally recognized career in a field that effectively lacks local infrastructure within the subject's home country'. I googled 'International Space Alliance' and the main results were official websites of the NGO (this and this), an organisational profile at the EIT Deep Tech Talent network that the NGO joined as a pledger (this) and pages on the social media (Linkedin, Faceebok and Instagram). I also took a look at the NGO's official website to notice a bunch of photos of the person in the 'Classes', 'Events' and 'Speeches & Panels' categories, which naturally gives me the impression that this NGO was primarily established for self-promotional purposes. So, iii) fails to support notability. As for iv), helping establish a NASA Space Apps hub in Strumica is certainly good for the locals, but there were 551 such hubs across 167 countries in the world in 2025, which is barely something that makes someone notable. In addition, Strumica has 33,825 inhabitants and is the country's ninth largest city by population according to the 2021 census. I expect RockyKT to continue gaslighting with multi-paragraph comments, but that won't change the observation that the person isn't notable for a Wikipedia article. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The main issue with this argument is that it evaluates notability through subjective comparisons rather than through Wikipedia’s actual standard of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia does not require a subject to surpass another individual in accomplishments, nor does it require analogue astronautics to be “more notable” than aerospace engineering. The question is whether the subject has received sustained independent coverage sufficient to support a standalone article.

The comparison to Margarita Marinova is therefore not particularly relevant. Two people can be notable for entirely different reasons within the broader space sector.

Several points in the article are also being understated or reframed selectively:

1. The SELENE and TERRA NOVA missions were not presented as equivalent to Antarctic expeditions, but as analogue astronaut missions connected to human spaceflight research and operational simulation. The TERRA NOVA mission in particular was publicly associated with the AstroMentalHealth project and an Axiom-related mirror mission framework, which received external coverage beyond LunAres itself.

2. The International Space Alliance is not cited as evidence of notability by itself. Rather, it forms part of the broader career profile covered across multiple independent sources discussing international outreach, analog astronautics, and space initiatives originating from a region with limited space infrastructure.

3. Regarding NASA Space Apps, the point is not that one local event alone creates notability. The significance is that cross-collaboration exist involving NASA research centers and regional expansion efforts tied to the subject’s leadership activities. Find 1 hub from those 551 that you've mentioned that is directly supported by a NASA Research Center.

The suggestion that the organization exists “primarily for self-promotional purposes” appears speculative and unsupported by sourcing. Wikipedia discussions should be grounded in verifiable evidence rather than assumptions derived from website aesthetics or photo frequency.

Most importantly, the argument largely avoids engaging with the independent sources currently cited in the article, including coverage from outlets and organizations such as Bloomberg Adria, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, International Astronautical Federation, ESA-BIC, National Geographic, being 1 of 50 Macedonian Woman featured in a Book about Notable Woman from Macedonia and other third-party publications. Whether editors personally find analogue astronautics compelling is ultimately less relevant than whether the subject has received non-trivial independent coverage over time.

And the last, I expect RockyKT to continue gaslighting with multi-paragraph comments, count your words and then mine words and see who is the one gaslighting with multi-paragraph comments. RockyKT (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - although no longer technically a speedy - the sourcing is still terrible; as I've written before, "Forbes is a crust of a shell of a carcass of a formerly reliable source." Bearian (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Just to add that the subject is featured in Se vikam hrabrost (My Name is Courage), a book highlighting 50 notable women connected to the history and development of North Macedonia. Notably, only four of the women featured are living individuals, including the subject. The publication focuses on women recognized for their societal, scientific, cultural, or humanitarian contributions and for serving as role models for younger generations. Importantly, the book is also included among the elective reading materials for 9th grade students nationwide in North Macedonia, giving the subject lasting educational and cultural visibility beyond routine media coverage.

Additionally, the subject contributed an essay to Life Beyond Us, an anthology of science fiction stories and scientific essays published by the European Astrobiology Institute. Inclusion in such a publication further demonstrates recognition of the subject’s work and perspectives within broader scientific and intellectual communities.

Taken together, these are not merely passing mentions in local media, but examples of long-term cultural and educational recognition that support the subject’s broader public significance.

RockyKT (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable independent secondary sources to support the claim that being featured in someone's book or having written an essay for someone's anthology on science fiction gives the subject 'lasting educational and cultural visibility beyond routine media coverage' other than linking to the publisher's and editor's websites? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is the feature is such a book giving lasting educational and cultural visibility:

1. Ministry of Education and Science – Bureau for development of education choosing the book as elective reading material for 9th grade students nationwide in North Macedonia.

2. The White Ravens 2025 - The book is in top 250 books for youth in this prestigious annual catalog of international children's and young adult literature published by the International Youth Library

Independent coverage:

1. Smart - Sakam da kazam

2. Hashtag - Faktor.mk

3. UMNO

4. MKD

5. Vecer

6. Republika

And many more....

Maybe you don't see the notability, but the Ministry of Education and Science decided that those 50 women are notable in the history of North Macedonia and that 9th graders should read about them. RockyKT (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

None of these sources support your claim that Martina Dimoska has 'lasting educational and cultural visibility'. Instead, Smart - Sakam da kazam, Hashtag - Faktor.mk, MKD and Vecer report on the book's promotion, UMNO and Republika report that the book was included in an international catalogue of youth's and children's literature, and Ministry of Education and Science – Bureau for development of education indicates that the Bureau for development of education recommends the book as an optional reading material for pupils in primary school. If anything, the sources you present make a case for the notability of Nadica Firfova as an accomplished children's writer. You've apparently regressed to using children's books to support the notability of the person we’re discussing. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you may be applying a narrower interpretation of “lasting educational and cultural visibility”.

The point is not that a single mention in a book automatically establishes notability. Rather, the combination of factors demonstrates sustained public and educational recognition beyond routine news coverage.

In this case:

1. The subject is one of only several living individuals included in Se vikam hrabrost, a book specifically dedicated to women considered significant to the history and development of North Macedonia.

2. The book was subsequently recommended by the Bureau for Development of Education as optional reading material for 9th grade students nationwide, which gives the subject recurring exposure within the educational system rather than temporary media attention.

3. The book also received international recognition through inclusion in The White Ravens 2025 catalogue by the International Youth Library.

4. Independent secondary sources covered both the publication itself and its broader significance, not merely a passing local mention.

It honestly feels like you are evaluating every source in isolation while ignoring the broader cumulative picture entirely.

The broader picture here is that the subject has received recurring recognition across educational, cultural, scientific, and media contexts worldwide.

Being included among a small selected group in a nationally promoted book, having that book recommended for students nationwide is part of the wider context.

You may still disagree that this reaches the threshold for notability, but the discussion increasingly feels less like neutral source evaluation and more like trying to individually disqualify every source regardless of the cumulative significance they establish together. RockyKT (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:ANYBIO says The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography). The children's book you're referring to is definitely not a 'country's standard national biographical dictionary', so please don't wave it as a proof that demonstrates the person's notability. There are thousands of notable works of arts, not local children's books, documenting the lives of people who have no Wikipedia articles. Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art. It depicts Giovanni Arnolfini holding the hand of his wife Constanza Arnolfini, who has no Wikipedia article. Honeyland is an international award-winning documentary film with two nominations for an Oscar. It documents the life of Hatidže Muratova, one of the last beekepers in Europe, who has no Wikipedia article. So, it's clear as day that being featured in someone's work of art doesn't imply notability. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You are focusing narrowly on one source while ignoring the broader body of coverage and recognition discussed throughout the AfD.

Whether one personally considers the publication “important enough” is secondary to the broader question of whether reliable, independent sources collectively demonstrate enduring public significance. AfD discussions are supposed to assess the overall weight of sourcing and coverage, not dismiss every source individually in isolation until nothing remains.

Once again, the book that you call "local children book" is part of the curriculum, as elective reading material, and also in the international The White Ravens 2025 list (Maybe it's about local people, but the international community finds value in it).

Also your comparison is not equivalent. Those people are part of another subject's work. This Subject is not known because she is in the book. She is in the book because she is part of those 50 notable women that the independent author decided to include, and that the ministry of education decided that's worth being added to the elective reading material.

At this stage, the discussion is also starting to resemble an effort to systematically invalidate every supporting source individually rather than evaluate the subject’s overall notability in a balanced manner. Wikipedia discussions work best when sources are assessed collectively and neutrally, rather than through selective dismissal of each source in isolation. I really want to assume Good Faith, but dismissing this book, ESA-BIC, Bloomberg, International Astronautical Federation etc. And not finding any value in any of those sources is strange. RockyKT (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You are focusing narrowly on one source while ignoring the broader body of coverage and recognition discussed throughout the AfD. Yes because it's evident from the course of the discussion in this AfD that additional reliable sources are necessary to establish notability.

AfD discussions are supposed to assess the overall weight of sourcing and coverage, not dismiss every source individually in isolation until nothing remains. Exactly. The only problem is that you presented new sources about the promotion of a children's book and evidence that the book was recommended as an optional reading material for pupils in primary schools, and you axiomatically assume that the person we're discussing must be notable just because it's featured in that book alongside 49 other women. This is not how WP:NBLP works.

Once again, the book that you call "local children book" is part of the curriculum, as elective reading material, and also in the international The White Ravens 2025 list (Maybe it's about local people, but the international community finds value in it). Those people from the international community who know Macedonian may find value in it because there are no reliable sources that the book has been translated into any other language. Anyway, if they find value, it may be because the book is well written, the choice of women is balanced and good, the details from the women's biographies are well put etc., but not necessarily because Martina Dimoska is in it.

She is in the book because she is part of those 50 notable women that the independent author decided to include, and that the ministry of education decided that's worth being added to the elective reading material. She's in the book because the author decided that her biography is inspirational in the same way as the biographies of the other 49 women are. A woman with an inspirational biography isn't automatically notable.

Wikipedia discussions work best when sources are assessed collectively and neutrally, rather than through selective dismissal of each source in isolation. I suppose this is a general remark as the sources in the article have already been dismissed by the majority of editors in this AfD.

I really want to assume Good Faith It seems like almost all your edits here are revolving around a single article and related pages, which makes your account a single-purpose account by definition, and you don't give an impression that you're here to build an encyclopaedia (see WP:NOTHERE). That's bad-faith editing (note that WP:BADFAITH redirects to WP:NOTHERE).

but dismissing this book I'd like to believe that this book is an independent reliable source that can be used to support some biographical facts, but you don't give us a chance to properly evaluate it because you're imposing a notability theory that you assume to be true. So, instead of discussing what details of her biography are included in the book and how the book's author found those biographical details, we're still stuck with your belief that she must be notable because children will read her story.

And not finding any value in any of those sources is strange. I find it even stranger that someone has an incentive to fight so hard for a Wikipedia article like it's a life-or-death emergency. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 23:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's try not to relist the discussion for the 4th time. I will state why I think this is keep, if somebody agrees with the statements bellow please reply, if somebody doesn't agree with one of the statements bellow, please explain your reasoning.

1. The Subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, Subject received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
   1. There is a biography of the subject published in the book Se vikam hraborst (My name is courage), encyclopedic book that's published by a secondary reliable and indepenent author and publishing house.
   2. There are several independent secondary reliable authors that published about her or missions she participated in reliable websites. Some of them being:
      1. Article by Petr Mild on European Space Agency BIC covering 1 of her missions.
      2. Article by James Dragan published on Space Insider about her activities.
      3. Article by Adam Curtz on UND Today covering other analog mission
      4. Featured on Bloomberg Adria
      5. Article by Ewelina Zambrzycka-Kościelnicka on National Geographic covering one of her missions.
      6. Featured by the Cabinet of the President of Macedonia
      7. Featured on the website of National Televison Kanal 5
      8. This is a primary source that's not here to source any information, just to confirm that she is invited/featured on National News as space professional.
      9. Article
   3. According to WP:BASIC - People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
      1. Subject is not notable only for a single event, that's clear. so the first exclusionary criteria is dissmisied.
      2. I fail to find anything that links the subject to WP:NOT, so the second exclusionary criteria should be dismissed if there isn't anything that classifies the subject as WP:NOT.
2. The information above is enough for the Article to be kept because the subject satisfies the WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and Subject is not WP:NOT nor WP:1E. But still I want to ask some questions about the WP:ANYBIO. I found some discussion about the WP:ANYBIO but I still fail to find detailed description of what's considered well-known and significant award. Because the subject won IAF ESL, which is award from the biggest international space advocacy organization. Subject also won an award from AIAA which is world's largest aerospace society. (Probably awards not known in the non-Aerospace community, but well known between people in those communities). Also the subject won award from Bloomberg Adria which is Southeast Europe's first pan-regional, multi-platform business news network.

RockyKT (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this list gives a good grasp of what are significant awards in space technology. Other than that, official national recognitions for people with important contributions in the areas of science, culture and society may also be considered significant (for instance, see Orders, decorations, and medals of North Macedonia for more details). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that being featured on the websites of Macedonian national televisions makes someone inherently notable. Macedonian Wikipedians not only receive mentions on the websites but are regular guests on their shows to talk about their contributions and activities (see this, this and this). Furthermore, a friend of mine was a guest on the Macedonian Radio Television to discuss his academic research at world's top universities (see this). All these people don't have articles on the English Wikipedia, and I don't think they should despite the fact they're my friends. And let me explain how you can get on a television in Macedonia: 1) you find a contact from someone who works for a television, 2) you contact them and explain how your work stands out, 3) they offer to write an article on their website and/or invite you to participate on one of their shows in order to fill in the schedule, 3a) if you choose an article, they ask you to send them the text that they editorialise and publish and 3b) if you choose participation on a show, they send you the questions so that you can prepare for the conversation in advance. The news article published by Kanal 5 you're referring to evidently went through this same process (Why do they promote her non-verified Instagram profile and how do they now that she operates that profile?). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Your argument relies heavily on personal anecdotes and assumptions about how Macedonian media operates, but Wikipedia evaluates subjects based on published reliable sources, not personal theories about how coverage “probably” happened. Whether somebody can contact a TV station is irrelevant unless there is evidence the coverage is non-independent or promotional. Speculation about Instagram verification or assumptions about editorial processes are not policy-based arguments.

The actual question is whether the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The evidence presented in my last comment shows that she does.

Regarding television appearances: nobody argued that a Kanal 5 appearance alone establishes notability. It was presented as additional evidence of public recognition, not as the core argument. Even without the TV sources, the subject still appears to satisfy GNG through independent coverage alone. And by the way I've mentioned that Kanal 5 Article because for me it looked independent. Also mentioned the Sitel TV because it's not just an appearance in a tv show but featured as an field expert when the television was covering the Artemis Mission on the National News. It's hard for me to believe in your theory about how the coverage happend. Do you think that on this show on Sitel Tv, the subject of this article, The President, The Governor of NBRM, The best female sportiest called the television to be featured? Several mediums covered this show, including Nezavisen Vesnik, MIA, Libertas, Naroden Glas, NBRM. There is a difference between being a guest on a Tv Show as you've sent examples, and being a part of a TV Show that other independent mediums write about. I've brought this since you mentioned the Tv Shows and Subject "asking" to be featured on them. Otherwise I think it's irrelevant for this discussion.

Most importantly, deletion discussions should be grounded in policy and sources, not personal experiences with local media or hypothetical explanations of how interviews are arranged.

In the meantime, while we are discussing the Subject here. It's worth noting that she received an award from The President of Macedonia, The Ministry of Digital Transformation and Women in Tech. The event was covered by the Official Website of The President, as well in dozens of independent medias such as: Kurir, Macedonian Radio Television, Telma, Denesen and probably 10 more. RockyKT (talk) 20:05, 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.

Fredrick Demond Scott

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

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

WP:BLPCRIME: From my own search, Scott has not been convicted of a crime, and on Wikipedia, we do not include criminal biographies until after conviction. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri, Crime, and People. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet BLPCRIME. In addition, the news attention on this crime appears to be limited to local newspapers and television, more indication that this isn't a crime that should appear in WP. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 22:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm the person who created this article. Thank you for linking to that wikipedia policy. Perhaps we could keep the article, but change the name of the article, and remove the name of the person who has been charged? A serial killer is notable enough to have its own article - just without naming the person. U87115bgcz (talk) 22:02, 31 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.

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:Wikipe-tan → WP:mascot – The extensive displays of images should be in one or more gallery pages on Commons. The verified statements should be moved to Wikipedia and mascots § Wikipe-tan. The unverified statements that are nonetheless useful for editors to know about should be in the relevant section of the mascots guidance page, which used to have a historical template but has now been revived due to the interest in Baby Globe. I list this merge proposal at WP:AfD rather than being WP:BOLD, since I expect it will receive significant discussion. I am also nominating the following related articles:

WP:Baby Globe (edit | [[Talk:WP:Baby Globe|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Arlo James Barnes 19:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related AfD discussions. Arlo James Barnes 22:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, wrong venue. I'm not going to say what the right one is. Don't be the fun police. MediaKyle (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to police fun, just keep the fun together on the relevant page for editor reference (which is to say, Wikipe-tan and Baby Globe are both Wikipedia mascots). I think the appropriate venue is Miscellany for Discussion, but I'm not sure how to transfer it. So I guess just proc close this one. — Arlo James Barnes 22:28, 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.

New York State Electric & Gas

New York State Electric & Gas (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 Avangrid because it fails WP:NCORP. NYSEG is not notable due to it becoming a larger part of Iberdrola. Bryce M (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: becoming part of a larger company later on does not actually invalidate any notability that may have been attained before then, as notability is not temporary. (No opinion on whether that is actually the case here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  KEEP. I agree with WCQuidditch. For example Florida Power & Light is part of a bigger company. -420Traveler (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep in this case. While the NYSEG does seem to be part of a larger company, there are countless news stories that demonstrate standalone notability. Based on the news coverage out there, you could go really in-depth with this subject matter, beyond a section of another page. Just a couple of recent examples here and here, and there are so many others. Like this government one: https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/pete-harckham/elected-officials-and-utility-customers-call-state-rein Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Pretty extensive coverage (NYT 1976, Binghamton 1990, Elmira, 1997, Buffalo, 1997, Binghamton, 2002, Ithaca, 2004, Binghamton, 2005, Management Review, 1987, PhD Thesis 1997 (An econometric analysis of a regional power company and evaluation of its investment policies by using optimal control technique: The case of New York State Electric and Gas Corporation)) over a wide range of mediums and time suggests a pass of NCORP (A lot of this coverage goes into substantial depth, beyond simply WP:ROUTINE announcements, and it spans a wide range of regional sources). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:32, 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.

Mohammad Kaleem

Mohammad Kaleem (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 seems to be covered by the spirit if not the exact letter of WP:BLP1E - someone only notable for a single event (in this case their medical condition), and where all the sources are related to that.

NB that there was a previous nomination a month ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Kaleem), which was procedurally closed as the proposer was later blocked, but I think it is worth re-opening the discussion. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and also because the sources are all tabloids that basically ask their readers to think of the children. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: There's nothing more to it besides being a classic WP:BLP1E case. People around the world do have unique physical characteristics, but that doesn't mean that we will go on having an article for each one of them. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:18, 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.

Temple Christian School (Fort Worth, Texas)

Temple Christian School (Fort Worth, Texas) (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)

Google search gives me these results, in order: GreatSchools, Grokipedia (!), Facebook, Legacy Obituary, actabs (expired listing), eBay, LinkedIn, Pinterest. Only citation is the school's website. No sign of independent coverage of school, so looks like it fails WP:N. 7amithorn me - talk 20:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify: Qualifies under WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. While there aren't a whole ton of sources available, there are, in my opinion, enough to maintain an article. However, the article does lack the number of necessary references, and I think should be draftified so that the article can get some more proper sources, and so that the article can be built out a little more.「NuggFrog」 (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we discuss sources not assert them
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 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!} 21:18, 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.

Nicholas Lezard

Nicholas Lezard (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)

When details of your family are more extensive then your own biography in your own biography, well we obviously have a dearth of sources. Everything here about the subject is primary so this looks like a GNG fail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You can't delete Nicholas Lezard, he's famous. Longstanding Guardian book reviewer, New Statesman columnist. I agree the stuff about his relatives is excessive, but that's a separate issue. -- Alarics (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

famous is not the same as notable so on basis are you making that assertion ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I've trimmed the absurdly over-detailed and largely off-topic off-the-direct-line ancestry, name-dropping, and mentions of non-bluelinked people, per the above discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• The article (with or without the lengthy ancestry) contains next to nothing that actually establishes notability. Readers of The Guardian are aware that Lezard is a conspicuous literary critic, so he is certainly quite well-known but that doesn't directly equate to WP:N. WP:NJOURNALIST offers 4 criteria "likely" to establish notability:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited .....
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept .....
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a ... well-known work [which was] the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews .....
4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument .....

Criterion 1 *might* be met but I'm not sure "well-known" equals "important", while "widely cited" is unclear without actual citations. Criteria 2, 3, and 4 all seem not to be met. Easiest might be to find reviews of his books to establish notability via the "widely cited" clause. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I found this but I doubt it's the same person. He might be very famous as a newspaperman, but we need some sourcing ABOUT him, not things BY him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Has this person won any newspaper awards in the UK that would help show notability? I'm not sure what to be looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  He seems to have won the Jack Trevor Story Memorial Cup Award sometime before 2015.

  He was a judge for the Goldsmiths Prize 2018. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's some reviews of his memoir Guardian Spectator Telegraph Indy Times; and of his book about the Olympics: The Guardian. Morwen (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, the relative fame, reviews of his books, literary prize, and being a literary judge are together sufficient for notability. If you twist my arm I might even write up some of that in the article (not that I'm a fan of the literary establishment). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, having one notable book is not enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying that it is; it is one component of a multi-stranded notability, per the multiple lines of evidence (and there are multiple books and reviews of them). Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Is there sigcov for the other lines? No. He meets no notability guideline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, they're all reliably sourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reliably sourced does not always equate to independent, significant, notability proving coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  In this case, the sources in this discussion are certainly independent and significant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Which ones give sigcov of him? None have been demonstrated in this AfD. I am open to changing my mind if there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Have you read all the reviews I've provided, even the paywalled ones? Morwen (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. All of it is coverage of the book, one book he wrote is notable, so we could have an article on that book, but one book is not a "significant body of work". The other source about a different book is an article written by him, not independent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oh huh. That's an error on my part - my apologies! I swear I found an independent one for that. I'll see if I can dig it up. Morwen (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: (1) Lezard's been the main reviewer of translated literary fiction in the UK for a couple of decades, which was why I originally created the article. My own view is that review journalists, since they conventionally don't tend to attract secondary commentary themselves, are badly served by the general notability guidelines. Their importance is shown by how often they are cited, and in fact Lezard is cited over 200 times in en:WP. However, I understand that this reasoning may not generally convince. Thankfully, (2) Lezard has also written four books, and his books have been fairly widely reviewed. Though this is to my mind his lesser achievement (and the reviews haven't yet been added to the article), it's enough to meet the notability guidelines. Dsp13 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Absolutely: and Criterion 1 (quoted above) actually says "or is widely cited", so that is enshrined in policy: widely-cited = notable journalist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Dsp13, as the original creator of this page, you can’t cast a !vote, but you’re free to speak your mind regardless; I’ve struck out your Keep !vote. 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 03:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, the original editor's !vote may be predictable but it's valid all the same, it's not forbidden by policy: I'm restoring it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Happy for anyone to strike out my 'vote'(!), but hope participants don't ignore my reasoning :) Dsp13 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added a Reception section with several reviews of different books. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 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!} 21:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep WP:HEY TechnoESP (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.

Martti Lintulahti

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

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

I propose draftifying because previous afd said more sources exist, but no one added them 3 years later. Doesnt currently meet WP:NBIO Finnfrog99 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since 2017, well before even the first nomination. This is another reminder that bringing up sources at AfDs–as potential sources can factor into notability even if they haven't been added yet–is best accompanied by actually adding them to the article, as not doing so will invariably result in renomination at some point after the usual waiting period. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iraq, Finland, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• The article is ineligible for draftification since it is more than 90 days old (WP:DRAFTNO). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  My mistake Finnfrog99 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  I actually don't see a mistake on your end–my understanding is that a article cannot be unilaterally draftified if it is older than 90 days, but the RfC that roughly led to that standard also, somewhat more clearly (but still roughly), affirmed that this simply means consensus at AfD is required after that point (which this nomination appears intended to seek). I haven't seen anything to indicate any adjustment to a full prohibition of sending old articles to draftspace even with consensus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  If the original creator or an active contributor were present, that might be ok, but now it would just act "as a backdoor route to deletion", which WP:DRAFTIFY warns against. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify is acceptable, but no promises that it will pass GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: no policy basis for draftification (articles are not required to cite sources than demonstrate notability), and it would just function as backdoor deletion here rather than actually making improvements more likely. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:08, 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.

Godwin Tom

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

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV for this talent manager. Looks to fail WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Nigeria. JTtheOG (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - could frankly be speedily deleted. Nothing notable here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - no real claim to notability, and the sources are the usual perennials of Nigerian puff pieces. Bearian (talk)
• Delete: Apart from being the "Managing director" of Sony Music in Nigeria there's actually nothing that points to passing WP:GNG or meeting WP:ANYBIO. Tuesden (talk) 09:13, 31 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.

Paul Okeugo

Paul Okeugo (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)

Recreation of an article deleted several times over, and it's easy to see why. This blatant puff piece should be blown up by WP:TNT asap. If the subject is indeed notable, the article should be written by someone not connected to or outright paid by him. JTtheOG (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Nigeria. JTtheOG (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Low-quality sources, promotional tone, lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent and reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and WP:SALT. Repeatedly moved back and forth between draft and main space, and editors have had to keep removing promotional content and copyright violations. The sources are basically puffery type stuff common in Nigeria. Bearian (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT - Repeatedly oscillating between draftspace and mainspace....fixing this again and again isn't worth the time of other editors. It's evident from their recalcitrant attitude towards our policies, that if this gets deleted without SALTing, we're gonna end up here soon again, with a new version. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per norm. Should be WP:SALTED. Tuesden (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Retro music11 (talk) 15:45, 31 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.

Golden Nsogbu

Golden Nsogbu (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)

Puff piece on a business "mogul" created by a blocked user. Nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV from WP:IRS. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 22:16, 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.

Abegong

Abegong (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 source I could find mentioning this name was old gazetteers (e.g. ) which do not make the claim that this is a village. I was unable to find any plausible alternate transliteration here .

The given coordinates lack precision, there appear to be some small settlements nearby, but there is no way to determine if the name is tied to any of them. Giulio 20:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Myanmar. Giulio 20:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete seems to only be on listed weather websites and that's about it. the farsi page cites the English wikipedia, which cites no sources Junosang^{leave a message} 13:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete cannot find any village named anything similar in Myanmar's government MIMU pcodes system, likely not a real village, and definitely not legally recognised as of 2019. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Also, the archaic language instead of Myanmar makes me think that the few sources are badly out of date. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:32, 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.

Ademola Alugo

Ademola Alugo (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)

Puff piece on a music executive. Every single source is either explicitly promotional or not at all in-depth coverage. Nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Note: WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA seems particularly relevant when considering these sources. JTtheOG (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Nigeria. JTtheOG (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Limited independent coverage focusing on him personally. A case of WP:TOOSOON. - The9Man ^Talk 07:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 22:16, 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.

Rader v. State

Rader v. State (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)

Old cases don't get a lot of coverage, with few exceptions, and this doesn't seem to be one of them. Poking around Google Scholar and Westlaw turns up nothing except passing mentions; the only cited source here is a textbook reprinting the case opinion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I also did some searches including on archive.org. It appears that the Bonnie Crim Law book is the only one which mentions this case, and that is not enough for notability. Oblivy (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage, but ping me if you find anything citing this. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

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

State v. Anderson

State v. Anderson (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)

Old cases often don't get a lot of coverage individually (except the very-notable ones, of course), and I don't see the evidence here of SIGCOV. Basically nothing comes up on Google Scholar or Westlaw, just a passing mention in two articles. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and Tennessee. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - this has zero value as precedent. It's just the sort of case that law professors love to force their students to "think like a lawyer." Been there, done that, passed the bar exam on the first try. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 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.

Ivan Marchenko (disambiguation)

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

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

I realise that sometimes we should retain red links, but this is overdoing it, a disambiguation page consisting entirely of red links. Even if one did get an article one day it would be better be dealt with by a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• As mentioned earlier, all the entries satisfy the guideline on red links on disambiguation pages WP:DABRL - they all have at least one link from an article that mentions them (WP:DABMENTION), they all demonstrate potential (WP:POTENTIAL) in the captions - top level politicians and a national hero.

By keeping this, we encourage the knowledge about these people to grow, which is the point of WP:RED. It's that much more likely that someone will write articles about them if we provide this sort of a clear and explicit red link reachable from the most obvious place where a new editor interested in these topics would start. It's not at the base name, but it is reachable via the hatnote. It doesn't really bother readers only interested in the best documented meaning, but does still help the others.

(Keep) --Joy (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Compliant with WP:DABRL and useful as explained by Joy. Could be expanded with additional entries from ru:Марченко, Иван. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: compliant with our rules for dab pages, and useful: someone has gone to the trouble to distinguish these four people and that in itself is useful in avoiding confusion. How would the encyclopedia be improved by destroying this page? PamD 10:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This is a useful disambiguation page and the politician pages are likely notable and just have not been created yet. I don't seen the reason to delete this disambig. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep notable entries, with Russian articles, but even if not, all entries meet MOS:DABMENTION and WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 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.

Null hypothesis

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

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

I propose merging to Statistical hypothesis test because this article is not independently meaningful. Most (if not all) of the content is either covered on the Hypothesis Testing article already, or would at least be better placed there. Defining a null hypothesis requires repeating the definition of a hypothesis test, and vice verse on the hypothesis testing article. Searching for Null Hypothesis should probably redirect to the "definitions" section of the Hypothesis Testing article. The same logic applies to the "Alternative Hypothesis" article. Danielittlewood (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related article:

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

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related AfD discussions. Danielittlewood (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Danielittlewood (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Notifying contributors: @Jmv2009, Melcombe, SolidPhase, Leolsz, and NorPotatoes: (from https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Null%20hypothesis and https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Alternative%20hypothesis) Danielittlewood (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There is previous discussion on the Null Hypothesis talk page (back in 2009): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Null_hypothesis#Merging

I agree with the criticisms there and can't see why the merge did not go ahead. Danielittlewood (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge both null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis into statistical hypothesis test. It is impossible to properly discuss one without the other; there's no point in having separate articles. For the same reason, we have one article on body-relative direction rather than separate articles on "right" and "left". Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge There is no point in splitting up these intimately connected topics into separate articles that are then forced to quote each other extensively. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 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.

Uncontested shot

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

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

WP:NOPAGE. There are lots of sources that mention uncontested shots, but none that give SIGCOV. (The one source cited only mentions "uncontested shot" in reference to free throws, which is not what this article is talking about.) This page will never be more than a dictionary definition, so best to merge it to Glossary of basketball terms where it belongs. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Basketball. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Glossary of basketball terms#U. The article is basically an expanded definition with no SIGCOV. The term was not listed in the glossary article, but I addressed this WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue today by adding a brief definition (which should remain on that page no matter the result of this AFD). No further merging is necessary. Frank Anchor 11:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Frank Anchor. SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:52, 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.

Jerlan Omarchanov

Jerlan Omarchanov (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 seems like a WP:BLPCRIME violation. Largely negative BLP about someone who was acquitted of "gross negligence" in 2022. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Germany. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:BASIC, non reliable sources in the article. Mehru13 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC) (blocked sock. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 19:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC))

  Not reliable? Why? Geschichte (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The sources appear to be reliable but mostly primary sources. Are there better, secondary sources available? Remember, the burden of proof is on those wanting to keep a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed as deleted but due to socking this needs to be restarted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable enough, was not criminally convicted. Practiced medicine without a license, but hasn't really done enough otherwise to meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete due to BLP violations. Nobody has addressed my previous concerns. We are not required to have an article about everything, and we are not Grokpedia. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 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.

Thomas Gantt

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

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

Non-notable mixed martial artist, fails WP:NMMA, WP:GNG. The coverage that exists is tightly clustered around two events (DWCS contract, UFC debut) and is largely WP:ROUTINE in character. Classic WP:TOOSOON, draftify as an WP:ATD would be appropriate pending UFC bouts and more independent coverage. Nswix (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Illinois. Nswix (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Support Not relevant as a public figure yet. Marty2Hotty (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Would like to get involved where can I see GNG and NMMA criteria? Mmastatmaster (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mmastatmaster: WP:GNG, WP:NMMA. Nswix (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify as per above discussion, and because all those bare URLs would otherwise be a reason to delete per WP:TBT. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure whether to vote to delete or draftify, but I will say I'm not yet seeing evidence of WP notability. He never competed at a world championship event, the highest ranked UFC fighter he's fought was ranked #356, and being an All-American in wrestling just means you finished in the top 8 in your division. In addition, I'm not seeing significant independent coverage that appears to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete/Draftify per discussion. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 22:24, 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.

Meathook (film)

Meathook (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)

Not sure this quite meets WP:NFILM. Aside from the sources in the article, I found one review from PopHorror and little else. JTtheOG (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: This could probably redirect to List of horror films of 2024. The PopHorror source is good, but not enough on its own and I don't know that the other sourcing is really enough to push it comfortably past NFILM. One is a routine announcement, one is a primary source (since he's a CSUN alumni), and the other is at best a non-notable film festival award and at worst, looks like it could be a pay-to-play. Per this, it looks like it isn't at all discerning in who gets to participate. The best I can say is that at least they aren't giving out 20 awards per category or listing ridiculous category types like "best eco disaster film set in a bakery run by a dog wearing sunglasses". (OK, OK, they usually aren't that specific but you get the drift.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. I was hoping to find another good review, but there just isn't anything out there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more supports for the redirect proposed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• REDIRECT as proposed above. --Zne0us Phenix (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, and as reasonable in these circumstances. Im not sure that I'll sleep tonight after reading it. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 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.

Al Amin Family

Al Amin Family (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)

Dubious sources and claims in this likely AI written article. Only 2 members of this family are notable enough to have their own article. Hardly meets the threshold for the entire family to be notable as notability is not inherited. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as AI drafted. No opinion on the notability claim, however, the fact that only two members of the family currently have articles is not evidence that other members of the family are not notable. Jahaza (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not a genealogical website and we are not Grokpedia. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 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.

Sur La Terre International

Sur La Terre International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to pass the WP:GNG, only sources I found were promotional listicles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Switzerland. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, I haven't been able to find anything either. Toadspike [Talk] 14:15, 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.

Long Live the King (adventure)

Long Live the King (adventure) (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 don't think this article meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, and it's not notable. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 09:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Games-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Short 16 page book published in 1983 by a minor publisher. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources beyond a mention in Heroic Worlds, which is still not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. Article is a stub with almost no content. Draftifying wouldn't be applicable either, there is no proper independent sources, it would not meet notability standards regardless. beegskin • 🖂 • 🖉 • 10:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep after Guinness323 added references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyfal (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep with the addition of additional sources. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep due to addition of sources. Guinness323 (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The first two sources are 1-2 sentence entries in long lists of games, and the third source does not appear to be independent of the company. I can't access the Abyss review. It could easily be a single-paragraph capsule review in a long list of reviews, but regardless of substance, a single review is generally not enough to support an article. @BOZ or @Guinness323 how long is the Abyss review exactly? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  In the review section titled "In the Speculum", it is a stand-alone review -- that is, it is in its own section titled "Long Live the King (ECI, POB 13190, Charlotte, NC 28211)" -- that is 200 words long. Guinness323 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Looks like the Abyss review is the only independent source in the article with significant coverage. I am inclined to support a merge to Silverdawn#Other adventures unless more than one source with significant coverage can be found at the very least (I realize the searching process can be difficult). Even if additional sources are found, a standalone article still might not be warranted per WP:NOPAGE. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss Helpful Raccoon's helpful merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge as per Helpful Raccoon; any article here would be very short and it seems perfectly suited to be a brief mention on the Silverdawn page. M kuhner (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep vis WP:HEY article has significantly improved with additional sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The page failed notability before but it looks good after the improvements made by @Guinness323. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:54, 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.

Theoretical physics

Theoretical physics (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)

For deletion per WP:TNT, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:FRINGE.

The article’s current structure conflates specific theories and models, mathematical frameworks, historical theories, and fringe material without a coherent inclusion criterion. The issue was also described in more detail on the article Talk page in the 7 June 2024 section "This page is a mess and should probably be deleted" (see here). Given the lack of cleanup, and the fact that most of these other things have their own pages, it should be deleted. LightBlob (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Physics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW keep per WP:DINC. Obviously notable as a major branch of academic research. Merely searching Wikipedia for articles with "theoretical physics" in their title finds dozens of research institutes, journals, and multi-volume sets of textbooks. If the article is badly organized or contains poorly chosen material, that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as this branch of physics is obviously highly notable and there is nothing so harmful (such as a massive copyright violation) that requires total deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The page is kind of a mess, in that way where it feels like it was written by a Slashdotter in 2004 and edited only in a drive-by way since then, with nobody actually volunteering their free time to bring it to a modern standard. I could see a case for stubbifying it. But nowhere do I see a case for deleting it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Needs work, but there's a valid topic here. I don't see the OR/SYNTH/FRINGE arguments as able to drag down the entire article. M kuhner (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Biggest duh keep in the world. Self evident. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW I also am a fan of Biggest duh keep in the world per @Headbomb lol Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep but probably stubify or at least cut down the worst parts; I boldly did so with the lists of mainstream and fringe theories. Sesquilinear (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Needs work, yes but I am just perplexed that this was nominated for deletion Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Just Fyi for everyone here, other editors and I have significantly improved this page. Do have a look. Also to remind everyone that AfD is not cleanup Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: It is surprising to even see this article be nominated for deletion due to its high notability and heavy citations. WP:DINC should be specifically kept in mind while approaching such important topics. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY and WP: SNOW. Even before being improved, WP:BEFORE applies here. This reminds me of the time a young kid nominated Procul Harum for deletion. FWIW, I have written articles on the topic. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 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.

Liberal Coalition Party

Liberal Coalition Party (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:Free-minded National Association § Merge

 – FaviFake (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Liberal Coalition Party Free-minded National Association

No reason to have separate article of Liberal Coalition Party. It is not real party, it is parliamentary caucus of the Free-minded National Association. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The claim that there is "no reason to have a separate article" and that the Liberal Coalition Party was "not a real party, only a parliamentary caucus" is only partly correct, but ultimately too simplified to justify merging the articles as identical topics. They were closely linked—but not the same entity. Liberal Coalition Party was the parliamentary political group operating in the Riksdag. Free-minded National Association was the national party organization that coordinated elections, membership, and extra-parliamentary activity. So it’s inaccurate to say the Liberal Coalition Party “was not a real party”—it was a real parliamentary party formation, even if it was organizationally dependent on the Free-minded National Association. Saftgurka (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  This doesn't mean merging as identical topics, but merging as a subtopic of Free-minded National Association. Almost all parties in the world has parliamentary party AKA parliamentary causus in the parliament that can have theoretically separate title. And only article is common procedure. This also apply for entities with same meaning and name like only article for Likud as coalition, then and party too. That it was a real parliamentary party formation is true also as it was not a real party. Article remodelling is indispensable in both variants. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:48, 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.

Targeted Convergence

Targeted Convergence (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 not at all convinced that this passes WP:NCORP. The cited sources, even though they come from journals, are discussing methodologies and case studies of the client, not the company. On top, case studies presented by the clients are not WP:ORGIND, same as books published by the founder of the company (sources like #7 and #19 from M. Kennedy). WP:BEFORE did not yield any positive difference. MitYehor📘^^talk 13:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Companies. MitYehor📘^^talk 13:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Per above. Was not able to find independent, third-party coverage in detail about this company. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 14:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - tiny company with 23 employees. For comparison, I supervised more employees at Bank of America, my case load as an associate attorney was three times that size, and my classes have routinely been larger than 23 students. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 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.

Zeus (Marvel Comics)

Zeus (Marvel Comics) (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 as many minor Marvel/DC characters, this one does not seem notable, with reception limited to listicles, and no other content in article except plot summary and list of appearances. This can be redirected to the usual list of Marvel characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Greece. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to be some comment on Zeus from The Incredible Hercules storyline in "The Role of Mythology in the World of Comics". Daranios (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Good find - this would be useful as it underpins his importance: "after which he became integral part of the Marvel Universe. He is often portrayed as the eternal rival and competitor of Thor, one of the Avengers." We might need to let this article cook for a bit. Emperor (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

That's pretty much in-universe importance, i.e. plot summary level, I fear. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - yes, it is largely primary sources and listicles but there are things we need to do WP:BEFORE this stage. Daranios has come up with one source and this should be flagged up as needing improved references. Emperor (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per Piotrus. I agree with his assessment of Daranios' source, it doesn't help indicate the character's independent notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: Z or keep, depending on scope: A pure redirect to the character list does not seem helpful to me, as there is currently only an empty section pointing here. And we know now there is some worthwhile coverage on the character (at the very least the sentence cited by Emperor is not pure plot summary). There is more news coverage focussed on the MCU version of the character (with some callback to the comics predecessor), who is currently covered in that corresponding list which in turn refers back here. Also compare thersites 20/2025, p. 158-161, as well as The Psychgeist of Pop Culture - Marvel Cinematic Universe, p. 39-50, for quite a bit of academic commentary on MCU Zeus. So if there was a decision to cover both versions in one article, the character would be notable. The MCU version alone already seems to be. Daranios (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Emperor, and the sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per the claims of @Daranios: and @BOZ:. They are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge to List of Marvels Comics Characters: Z. The Psychgeist source seems decent, but a vague Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS argument (Where at a glance most of the sources seem to just be plot summary recap of his comics appearances) is not enough for a full article in my view. Unless multiple pieces of SIGCOV can clearly be demonstrated I am going to continue to lean against Zeus having his own article for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Have you considered thersites linked above as a source in your verdict? Daranios (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per keep opinions above. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:40, 31 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.

Future Readiness Indicator

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

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

Delete – The topic does not appear to meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG).

The “Future Readiness Indicator” appears to be a concept or framework primarily developed and promoted by a specific institution, rather than a subject that has received significant independent coverage. The available sources are largely:

• Primary or originating organization sources
• Descriptive mentions rather than critical or analytical coverage
• Affiliated or non-independent material

There is limited evidence of substantial, in-depth discussion of the topic in reliable, independent secondary sources as required by WP:SIGCOV.

As a result, the article reads more like documentation of a proprietary or institution-driven concept rather than an independently notable subject. Per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORGIND, topics tied to a single organization require clear independent coverage, which is not demonstrated here.

Therefore, the article does not meet inclusion criteria and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaaikin (talk • contribs) 07:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Business-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Article is sourced overwhelmingly to the creator of the index. No WP:SIGCOV, external sources given in the article largely repeat press releases. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 15:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

*checks article*

...

Press Delete: For the same reasons both @Yaaikin and @Arcaist said. For my own reasons, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV as well in this topic, telling me that it'll fail WP:GNG. It's also largely linked to one website. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 16:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This article has very poor sourcing and fails WP:SIGCOV and [{WP:GNG]] Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, although I have no opposition to a redirect to Howard Yu. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 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.

Binghatti Properties

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are profiles, interviews, PR and press-release driven business news and routine annoucements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 13:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not CrunchBase. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 22:28, 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.

Jacob Hornberger

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Extremely poor refs are mostly WP:PRIMARY, profiles and WP:SPS links. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Texas, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and salt None of the issues from the previous deletion discussions have been addressed. The sources are not sufficient to pass GNG and candidates for president, especially candidates who do not emerge as their party's nominee, do not pass NPOL. Since this has been deleted multiple times at AfD, if this closes as delete, we should salt the article. --Enos733 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per nom and Enos733. This has been deleted multiple times for failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, and the references in this version do nothing to remedy that (as explained above). One of the sources, Independent Political Report, has been expressly deemed an unreliable source on WP. The previous redirect to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Candidates should be reinstated per this discussion, but only after the content is deleted and salted. Sal2100 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related AfD discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and WP:SALT, per WP:NPOL. The only editor who cogently wrote to support keeping it was the beloved, late DGG, who basically advocated for inclusion of all minority political candidates. The overall consensus did not join him. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 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.

Resad Ajim

Resad Ajim (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:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Kqol • talk 10:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Kqol • talk 10:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - references in the article are trivial mentions. A quick Google News search shows only more trivial mentions. He is young, so may well be notable one day, but not yet. PhilKnight (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; two sources are not enough for a BLP. It might just be too soon. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 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.

AmerAsian

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

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

Non-notable film, unsupported by any appropriate citations, and does not pass any other criteria of WP:NFILM. Page creator has made few edits other than to this article, and all of those are related to this film. — HTGS (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. — HTGS (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not MySpace or IMdB. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 22:31, 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.

Razack Sattar

Razack Sattar (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 GNG. Sources are routine and limited. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The text is a typical example of the standard self-promoting fluff, unfortunately endemic in Wikipedia, mostly concerning business people. The sources cited are an embarrassing collection of advertorial excess. A few samples from the prose should suffice, unless we do not think much of our stomachs:

Forbes India suggests that "Prestige Estates Projects, India’s second-largest listed real estate company, is on the brink of greater things. Now more than ever, [Prestige] needs its leader." DNA India has diagnosed that "the creative itch to build something overcame Sattar's desire to retire." While Financial Express reveals that Sattar's "journey...exemplifies the power of vision, hard work, and determination." And so on, and so sadly forth. But we are already on notice aren't we? See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

P.S. : That the creator is now banned for sockpuppetry is the least of our concerns here. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. This is lacking good sources, and as I've written before, "Forbes is a crust of a shell of a carcass of a formerly reliable source." Bearian (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Subject does not pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Retro music11 (talk) 16:21, 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.

Acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T

Acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T (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:Acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T § Merge proposal

 – FaviFake (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that Acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T be merged into the main articles on AT&T and/or DirecTV. The current standalone article is not viable in its present form and does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for a separate page. Reasons:

• Fails WP:V and WP:RS: The article contains large unsourced sections, incomplete paragraphs, and claims with no citations. Much of the content appears to have been added without verification.
• Fails WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: The acquisition is already covered in the parent articles, and the existing content here does not expand meaningfully beyond what belongs in a summary section.
• Fails WP:NOTNEWS: Routine corporate transactions generally do not merit standalone articles unless they have long-term encyclopedic significance supported by substantial secondary coverage.
• Incomplete and abandoned: Several sections are unfinished or contain placeholder text, suggesting the article was never properly developed.
• Redundant: The verifiable information can be integrated more effectively into the acquisition or corporate history sections of AT&T and DirecTV.

Given the lack of sourcing, incomplete structure, and redundancy with existing articles, merging is the most appropriate course of action. Any salvageable content should be incorporated into the relevant sections of the parent articles. ~2026-31013-37 (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Incomplete article does not need standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nomination. Article looks like a much more natural fit as a section in AT&T and/or DirecTV, as about half of its current length is a company history of AT&T anyway. The article doesn't demonstrate that the information specific to the merger is deserving of its own page. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 15:25, 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.

Kogane

Kogane (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:BASIC, 2 citations, one of which is from a blog, written almost like a WP:PROMO -- HungryHighway🛣️ 08:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see more sources have been added post nomination. Thoughts on them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete- I am not doubting this is (was?) a real person and the blog entries are true but I am not finding sources to pass GNG otherwise. Moritoriko (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not a journal of interesting people. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: there is a book about her, she exist. idk if she is notable tho. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

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

List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation

List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to List of ships at Dunkirk. These seem to cover the same topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge - lower quality duplicate article.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of France-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Reverse merge, adding MS Batory into the newer & more extensive duplicate article at List of ships at Dunkirk. It should then be renamed to follow the name of Dunkirk evacuation & Category:Dunkirk evacuation. FbiZinc began the newer article with the specific scope of Draft:List of Royal Navy ships at Dunkirk, and Gbawden accepted and promoted it to a live article; the scope was subsequently expanded to include all major merchant and naval vessels. Others including GraemeLeggett have subsequently worked on both. The 2014 listification should be kept for attribution and moved to a sub-page. I have checked the small list to the large one and fixed a couple of links; only MS Batory currently needs to be added, unless it's worth marking the Manx ships in the target list, as Ehrenkater has done in the small one. – Fayenatic London 16:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Nom comment I support the reverse merge as well, i.e. with the final page ending up at the more desciptive title "List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation". I proposed it the other way based on which page would be merged into the other. Ultimately, if a merge occurs, the title can always be dealt with afterward as a requested move if necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:33, 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.

Nisar Ahmed Siddiqui Road Sukkur

Nisar Ahmed Siddiqui Road Sukkur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG fail, refs include circular citations to Wikipedia, broken Google JS redirect, and social media, no independent Tier 1 coverage of this hyperlocal road. Xoonkowa (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT - I wouldn't be surprised if LLM created this. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 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.

Indu Sonali

Indu Sonali (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 relies heavily on YouTube links and routine coverage. Fails to demonstrate significant independent coverage required under WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sources currently used are insufficient to establish standalone encyclopedic notability. EditorOfBollywood (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. EditorOfBollywood (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: passes WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG or at minimum needs WP:BEFORE work: independent sources identify Indu Sonali among the top/successful female Bhojpuri playback singers, credit her with hit songs and her debut in Panditji Batai Na Biah Kab Hoi, and she is listed as Best Female Singer at the 4th Bhojpuri Film Awards.^[5][6][7] Tatupiplu’^{✦ talk} 14:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The singer is well known in the Bhojpuri entertainment industry. The singer also has sufficient coverage in both regional and national media.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 15:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - AfD created by a block-evading sock Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 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.

Stadium Road Nawabshah

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

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

WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG fail, six of nine references are unrelated to the road (OECD energy report, academic paper on electromagnetic fields, TEDx event, restaurant review) Xoonkowa (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The references seem to have been picked because they mention Nawabshah or the Stadium. No sign anyone is actually talking about the road (though admittedly, as the road is named for the town and a landmark in the town, it is difficult to search for). M kuhner (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - essentially WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 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.

Rinku Ghosh

Rinku Ghosh (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)