Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information < May 25, May 27 > ...
< May 25 May 27 >
Close

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

DerScanner

DerScanner (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 press, or routine or selfpublished sources can be found. No really good reliable sourcing. Jazzbanditto (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I found enough coverage to verify that this exists and is a real piece of security scanning software, but apart from mentions in lists of security scanning software, there's no independent coverage specifically about the product. As for the sources in the article, the announcements of partnerships and certifications are neither independent nor significant coverage. ~ A412 talk! 16:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:SIGCOV does not exist. I cannot see how a case for WP:GNG can be made here. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 20:46, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Adaralegbe Akintayo

Adaralegbe Akintayo (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 real estate developer. Every single source is either explicitly promotional or not at all in-depth coverage, with many duplicating the same text word-for-word. Nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Note: WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA seems particularly relevant when considering these sources. This piece is quite large, but clearly paid promotion. JTtheOG (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete promo puff piece, with no sources to help. the notability issue is stronger than the significant coverage as the person is not notable. Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: Puff piece on a non-notable person. 🄻🄰 14:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • DeleteWP:SIGCOV page doesn't have proper coverage with the sources link on the article. Staticspector (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom ConductorDeAutobus (talk) 10:02, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft merge to Australia national cricket team. Based on no significant discussion, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft merge. Editors are free to remove the articles from the merge backlog or reverse the merge by splitting the articles back out. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 02:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Australian Cricket Board Team of the Century

Australian Cricket Board Team of the Century (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 Australia national cricket team because its a simple list with one source that can easily be incorporated in the teams main article as a section. It doesnot and should not be a lone article. Superegz (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. I agree with Australian national cricket team as the destination, it's pretty typical that 'team of the century' or club/team hall of fame types of honorifics have a section in the parent team article. Aspirex (talk) 05:55, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Adelani Adewuyi

Adelani Adewuyi (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 real estate developer. Every single source is either promotional or not at all in-depth coverage. Nothing approaching independent WP:SIGCOV. Note: WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA seems particularly relevant when considering these sources. JTtheOG (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Billy Gram

Billy Gram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Beginning of article is full of highly questionable claims, such as Gram being the singer for Saints in Hell between 1980 and 1982, when Gram would have been 10-12. For context his supposed bandmates Tom Keifer and Eric Brittingham would have been ~19 and ~20 resepctively in 1980, so it's a bit dubious that two musicians who woul go on to have rather successful careers would be in a band with a 10-year-old singer at that time. His acting career appears to be a minor role here and there, nothing significant. Same for his career behind the camera, a documentary he was involved in producing winning a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award for best horror DVD extra doesn't come remotely close to making him notable. His wrestling career appears to be equally insignificant, often the sources don't mention him at all and on the rare occasions they do it's trivial coverage. TempAccount888 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was soft merge to Carrier telephony. Based on no significant discussion, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft merge. Editors are free to remove the articles from the merge backlog or reverse the merge by splitting the articles back out. (non-admin closure) FaviFake (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

12-channel carrier system

12-channel carrier system (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)
Information 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:12-channel carrier system § merge proposal
 – FaviFake (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
merge proposal

this is a subset of Carrier telephony should it merge? WhaleFarm (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhaleFarm, apparently all merge discussions are now being handled as though they are deletion nominations. Doesn't make sense to me either. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Yea, I saw that, but I guess a merge is a deletion.
I think everything in the 12 channel is covered, except the 45BN sales. The connection to hush a phone is dubious. I can't find a reference. Maybe the result of a later court case, there were several. WhaleFarm (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
I have merged into the carrier telephony article, there was no further discussion. WhaleFarm (talk) 23:13, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Boris Bobrovnikov

Boris Bobrovnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure how he could pass WP:NBIO. Of the eight references, the first is a dead link from a company he was a part of, the second is from a company he is a speaker of, the third and fourth are interviews, the fifth covers a forum he spoke at, and the sixth, seventh, and eighth are about him selling shares and resigning as CEO of CROC, a company he founded. Nighfidelity (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete No WP:SIGCOV ConductorDeAutobus (talk) 10:05, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Giovanni Assenza

Giovanni Assenza (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)

Deleted from the Italian Wikipedia as promotional. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO, unreferenced for 18 years. None of the external links mention him. Nothing found in WP:BEFORE searches. Here2rewrite (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Italy. Here2rewrite (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The lawyer clearly fails WP:GNG. It even looks like a case of mistaken identity; someone probably confused this subject with a different Giovanni Assenza, who is a notable neurology and epilepsy researcher (I found the doctor when I searched for sources on the lawyer, even though he doesn't have an article in enwiki or itwiki). Happypenguins82 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence that the subject passes WP:BASIC or any other notability criterion. Dionysodorus (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per above / WP:NOTCV. Svartner (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - poorly sourced; three external links are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add inline citations. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete no references at all for a BLP ConductorDeAutobus (talk) 10:07, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Simplecortex

Simplecortex (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 development board. Current sources solely consist of self-promotion from the developers, and outside sources consist of a handful of blogposts/promotional materials from 2012 or Wikipedia forks. Fails notability per WP:GNG. SeikilosEntombed (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom ConductorDeAutobus (talk) 10:09, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Manas Kumar Ganguly

Manas Kumar Ganguly (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)

20th-century Indian politician. This article is not actually a freshly written article about the subject, but rather is simply a duplicate of Dhirendranath Basu with the title, birth date (but not death date) and first source changed. The sources cited do not appear to support the claim that the subject sat in the Lok Sabha (which is where his claim to notability would rest under WP:NPOL), since only the first source seems to relate to the subject at all (the others being simply copied from Basu's article), and in this source the subject appears only to be the runner-up rather than the elected candidate.

So there is no basis for notability here, and there is also barely any content in the article that is not simply copied from an article about someone else.

This was previously passed through AfC, so I am pinging the AfC reviewer (Devonian Wombat) in case I am missing something here. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete sources don't support the claim that would make him pass WP:NPOL ConductorDeAutobus (talk) 10:10, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Jeff Korek

Jeff Korek (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)

Run-of-the-mill lawyer. Can find no better sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

University of Copenhagen Faculty of Life Sciences

University of Copenhagen Faculty of Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University because the University of Copenhagen Faculty of Life Sciences does not appear to be substantially notable in the few years of existence. Currently the article merely duplicates history from the target. Any content beyond organization restructuring that later editors wish to write can be added to one of the articles on its successors. Daask (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nomination. Although the faculty was part of the University of Copenhagen, I agree that it makes more sense to merge to the target page rather than to University of Copenhagen Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences or University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science, since it was a clear successor to the target page. Uffda608 (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Watney family. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Norman Watney

Norman Watney (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)

English 19th-century brewer. The article appears to be WP:OR based on primary sources contemporary with the subject. I cannot find any evidence that he is covered in secondary sources that would satisfy WP:BASIC, or that he meets any special notability criterion. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. seems WP:SNOW here. The editors believe that this is passed on NPOL. (non-admin closure) In solidarity, ROY is WAR Talk! 06:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sitara Afreen

Sitara Afreen (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)

Lacks general notability per WP:GNG] VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 20:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to UCPH School of Pharmaceutical Sciences. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Danish Pharmaceutical College

Danish Pharmaceutical College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to UCPH School of Pharmaceutical Sciences because there has been substantial continuity amidst organizational change, from:

  1. Pharmaceutical Teaching Institute (Den Farmaceutiske Læreanstalt) d:Q113004105
  2. Danish Pharmaceutical College (Danmarks Farmaceutiske Højskole) d:Q113004105
  3. Danish University of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Danmarks Farmaceutiske Universitet) d:Q113004105
  4. University of Copenhagen Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Det Farmaceutiske Fakultet) d:Q3374825
  5. University of Copenhagen School of Pharmaceutical Sciences (School of Pharmaceutical Sciences) d:Q12334743

Daask (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Ankur Garg

Ankur Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This article's content has been covered under Luv Films, which is the subject's production company. Unsourced content has been added to this article from socks blocked by User:asilvering, indicating possible UPE. The filmography mentioned herein is by the subject's company Luv Films than by the subject himself. I couldn't find anything to warrant a stand-alone article. Retro music11 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Interstate 676#Pennsylvania. Star Mississippi 03:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Vine Street Expressway Bridge

Vine Street Expressway Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable bridge. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of bridges like it; it's entirely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. It's faintly possible there's enough non-trivial coverage to pass GNG if offline sources are included, but the article, as it stands, lacks any evidence of such and clearly does not demonstrate passage of GNG. I attempted redirecting to the proposed target a year ago, but today that was reverted by an editor, so to AfD to consenus-ifiy the redirection we go. The Bushranger One ping only 19:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: since the AfD creator widget didn't actually put it here, I am proposing to redirect to Interstate 676. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Merge and redirect - I largely agree, nothing particularly special about the bridge. Red0ctober22 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Interstate 676. Please do not restore a two-sentence, one-source article under generic claims of likely passing GNG if you're not going to improve it. Expanded coverage in the main article is acceptable unless and until there's enough content to justify a standalone page. Reywas92Talk 00:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to offend anyone by the restoration. WP:BLANK is pretty clear that blanking isn't a substitute for deletion except in cases of libel or danger, neither of which apply here. Many other bridges of the Schuylkill have pages which pass WP:GNG, and I thought it best to come back to an AfD for those who pay more attention to bridge and interstates than I do. Wishing the best for this discussion, which seems to be leaning towards a merge or redirect. Yojo98 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
@Yojo98: No offence was taken, but you're misunderstanding WP:BLANK, which does not apply here. Page blanking means editing a page and removing its content to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content (emphasis added). The relevant policy here is WP:BLAR, which is standard practice for non-notable items that can be discussed in context of other, actually-notable subjects. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Ah, understood! Thanks. For the record, I don't particularly disagree with a merge right now, just didn't understand that this was the process. Yojo98 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
We're always learning! - The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article's shortcomings are editorial issues rather than reasons for deletion. Any remaining concerns can be addressed through improvement of the article. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Scalping (trading)

Scalping (trading) (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)

Issues have not been fixed in over a decade with more issues to add, very unencyclopedic and not a good fit for wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I've removed the AI tag as the AI-like bulletpoints were added before the release of ChatGPT. Ca talk to me! 23:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
That looks remarkably like WP:JUSTAVOTE. Yes, deletion is not cleanup, but that doesn't answer the suggestion that the article is "very unencyclopedic", nor the fact that leaving it in an unsuitable state for over a decade isn't cleanup either. I am also puzzled by your mention of removing an AI tag, since that has not been put forward as a reason for deletion. Why is that relevant? JBW (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Deltaspace42 added it to the Suspected AI-generated articles delsort list. Ca's comment seems perfectly reasonable in that context. ~ A412 talk! 20:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep This article covers a reasonably important finance topic that one would certainly expect to see covered in Wikipedia. The claimed reasons for deletion seem quite weak to me. Although it has had a “Needs additional citations” flag since 2010, it is by no means an uncited article and A412 recently removed most of the uncited text. I don’t know what is meant by “very unencyclopedic and not a good fit” for Wikipedia. If there are more issues to add, they should be added. It seems to be a classic case of an article that should be improved, not deleted. John M Baker (talk) 01:02, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. I'm concerned about how frequently RM seems to act without waiting for the outcome of a deletion discussion and they have moved this to a a BLP midway, which is not ideal. Regardless, I see a clear consensus after the move against such an article. Standards for BLPs are higher for other articles and if the collection is the only notable item for the individual then this is in BLP1E territory. Spartaz Humbug! 09:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Largest collection of Titanic on VHS

Largest collection of Titanic on VHS (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)

What happens if someone makes a bigger collection? Looks like a passing topic, not a permanent one. If anything, perhaps rename the article to Josh DiGangi and rewrite. UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think my article should be deleted, as it has sufficient media coverage. I could rewrite it as Josh DiGangi, I just wrote it as the largest collection of Titanic on VHS because there are more sources about the Collection itself. I also don’t think anyone would create a bigger collection, but if someone does it could be renamed to something like “collection of Titanic on VHS” Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 17:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I agree with the problem UtherSRG describes regarding the title, but that sounds like a move rationale to me, as I detailed in Talk:Largest collection of Titanic on VHS#Requested move 11 May 2026 (which was opened before this AFD). ~ A412 talk! 17:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree with changing the title to this. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 17:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to a different title per the current requested move. Based on the current sources cited in the article, it appears to have WP:SIGCOV, and that coverage is also WP:SUSTAINED, having sources spanning three years or so. I agree that the current title is bad, but that's grounds for renaming, not deletion. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 18:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep and move to Josh DiGangi Titanic VHS collection, Josh DiGangi, or Titanic VHS collection. Passing topics don't get SIGCOV from major U.S. publications in 2022 and June 2023, plus follow-up coverage in November 2023, 2024, and 2025. Josh DiGiangi would certainly be an ANYBIO pass, but I can also see other scopes meeting more stringent criteria. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I think Josh DiGangi Titanic VHS collection would work the best, as the article is focused on the collection Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 18:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Is it? A majority of the text below the lead is focused on DiGangi... regardless, that's an RM question. I only bring it up here because ANYBIO is a lower bar, in case a GNG pass isn't found here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I would argue it's about the collection and how it is shown online Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 19:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
The arguments based on coverage being routine have me reconsidering, but I'm not sure I'm at a delete. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, the sources meet GNG, and per the above comments and the presently open move discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep and Move to Josh DiGangi - I don't think WP:GNG is in question, even if I find the subject bizarre. I think the question of whether it remains/will remain the largest collection makes the move prudent. At some point the existing coverage won't be recent enough to support the title's claim. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: the RM closed, and the article has been moved to Josh DiGangi Titanic VHS collection. ~ A412 talk! 08:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hate to be a skunk at a garden party, but having reviewed this for DYK I am skeptical it should exist as a page, primarily for its WP:V failures. The size of this collection is entirely sourced to the DiGangi's own claims; there are no secondary sources that appear to have done independent evaluations of his collection's size. It's clearly large from social media photos, but the size is always validated by himself. Axios' 500 figure is based on DiGangi's own claim. Variety repeats DiGangi's 1560 claim (and clearly could not independent verify since they interviewed him over Zoom). The New York Post reports Variety's claim. TampaBay28 reports DiGangi's own claim of 2467, and GiantFreakinRobot attributes a claim of 2620 to DiGangi. A BI story attributes 2100 to DiGangi's TikTok bio. Ripley's Believe it or Not makes the claim of 2700 but a discussion at RSN suggests editors believe it to be an unreliable source, and Creative Loafing provides an unattributed claim of "nearing 3500" but also cites the Ripley's book. If we can't get an independent verification of this collection's size, I think we need to take all of this news coverage for what it is: an example of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts that do not confer notability on a subject per WP:ROUTINE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    As for the proposal to move this to Josh DiGangi, that would clearly be a WP:BLP1E situation. If this collection is to have an article, it will be because it's independently notable. While I agree that there is plenty of fun, light news coverage, I think the verifiability issues should make us cautious in determining that this coverage meets the test of WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: this is effectively an event article ('a man amassed largest collection of something'), however, the nature of available coverage fits the definition of WP:ROUTINE (brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories).) PaulT2022 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    Delete: WP:NOTNEWS RotatingPirateShip (talk) 14:34, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Yoo-Hoo (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

YooHoo

YooHoo (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 Yoo-Hoo (disambiguation) because Yoo-Hoo (disambiguation) also includes entries for "YooHoo" dotXK 17:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirect Both entries are already at the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested, and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 03:37, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Baku Flames International Festival of Creativity and Effectiveness

Baku Flames International Festival of Creativity and Effectiveness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article written by a declared WP:COI editor with a history of using WP:LLM to generate content. Entire article is highly suspect. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete By my count, 5 of the 8 sources are either dead links or do not go to the described article. A rate that high on an article just three days old strongly suggests LLM sourcing. There is also no attempt to show notability. M kuhner (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    Odd - when I declined the speedy I checked the references, and I just checked them again now. None of them are dead links, and although I can't read the non-English ones, the two that are in English are about the article topic, and the non-English ones that use Latin characters appear to be about the topic.
    Also - I would argue that as notability is about sourcing, citing any sources at all, including unreliable or made up ones, is an "attempt to show notability". (My comment should not be taken as a keep argument) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 12:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    User:ONUnicorn on what planet is using made up sources acceptable to show notability?! Based on that criteria literally anything could made notable. I could write an article about my cat and just invent the fact that they were covered in dozens of news articles. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    I didn't say it was acceptable - - I said it was an attempt. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    And I 100% disagree. Making things up is not and cannot in any way be construed as a valid attempt in any way. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: This article is somewhat-promotional AI slop. GrinningIodize (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:NOLLM, which is easily observed in the contribution history and talk page of the user that created the article. --gurkubondinn 17:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even if a compliant article could be written on this subject, this draft is so LLM-infested that this continuing to exist would actively hinder someone from writing that theoretically better article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - In current state this is poorly sourced LLM slop - surely a good case for WP:TNT Epsilon.Prota talk 23:08, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Viola Nimuhamya

Viola Nimuhamya (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)

Refs are profiles and WP:PRIMARY. I think its far too soooooooooon. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete - The listed sources include a profile of the subject on the website of the University of Bergen (which she attended), two pages about her and her work written by Southnord (which hosted an exhibition including her work), a link to the Stockholm Craft Week website (the only mention of the subject on there appears to be a gallery of the aforementioned exhibition shown in a list of other various exhibitions), two pages written by the curator of that exhibition, and a list of various exhibitions that were open in October 2025. Almost all of these are primary sources, and the few that are not simply provide a brief mention of her or her exhibition. She does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria for creative professionals, nor does she satisfy the general notability guideline. I did also try searching to see if there were any other sources available, but all that appeared were sources already included in the article or social media posts made either by her or by groups involved with her exhibition. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 20:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON and all primary sourcing from galleries and interviews + university listing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oddly, a couple of the external links are more substantial than the citations. Is this a case of WP:TNT? Ping me, etc. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. No support for deletion beyond nominator. Any editor may add the qualifying sources to the article. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Terry Clark (musician)

Terry Clark (musician) (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 has been tagged for nearly 14 years.

The cites that work are to interviews and subject's own websites. One of the self-cites flags web warnings. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment one of the citations is too a substantial biography in a book available via Internet Archive and that link works. Jahaza (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. The biography in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music is already cited in the article. Reviews of Clark's album Welcome include "Gospel Reviews", Cash Box, 30 September 1978, p 36; and "Gospel Album Picks", Record World, 2 September 1978, p 102. Reviews of Clark's album Melodies include "Album Reviews" in "Gospel", Cash Box, 2 August 1980, p 30; and "Gospel Album Picks", Record World, 19 July 1980, p 207. Periodical articles about Clark include "Terry Clark Airplay Delays Europe Tour", Cash Box, 17 March 1979, p 42; and "Steering Wheel Makes Unusual Promo Idea", Cash Box, 13 December 1980, p 31. Music magazines like Billboard, Cash Box, and Record World, etc, had regular gospel music columns, and he is repeatedly covered by those columns over and over again. There are far too many sources for me to attempt to produce an exhaustive list now. James500 (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion exercising WP:AGF . There are also multiple reviews by Cross Rhythms as shown here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:GNG. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please add the additional sources (reviews) to the article, in context. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Rachael Gbekele-Oluwa Ayo

Rachael Gbekele-Oluwa Ayo (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:NACADEMIC, WP:NPROF. scope_creepTalk 16:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Ihavandhoo. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Ihavandhoo Health Centre

AfDs for this article:
Ihavandhoo Health Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, unreferenced with trivial mention from what I see. UnilandofmaTalk 16:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

.

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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 09:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Martha Jane Phillips Starr

Martha Jane Phillips Starr (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)

Single obit and profile are insufficient for a bio article. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep as I could find a mention in a book published by Arcading Publishing and a newspaper article which mentions a butterfly museum named after her, meaning that more coverage could be likely. I'll see if there could be more contemporary coverage on Newspapers.com, and if I can't find any, I'll change it to a delete vote. Nighfidelity (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep based on what's available and to avoid feeding our critics. A minimal effort for a deceased person is to look for news articles, of which there are a few. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we we have WP:THREE reliable, secondary, independent and in-depth sources that proves she is a philanthropist and/or activist. I can then use them to update the article. Another couple of obits will do. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. She received a by-lined obituary in the Kansas City Star, she's profiled in UMKC's Profiles in Kansas City Activism digital history project, and the UMKC library's finding aid for her archive includes an extract from a 1998 profile of her by Leigh Vaccaro ("A Legacy of Leadership") in Perspectives Magazine (which I believe is the university's alumni magazine). pburka (talk) 14:10, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Woody McEvers

Woody McEvers (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)

Well referenced but only with trivial and routine coverage. Being mayor of Coeur d'Alene doesn't immediately guarantee notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Gangarampur#College. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Gangarampur College

AfDs for this article:
Gangarampur College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

National Bureau of Classification

National Bureau of Classification (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)

Very limited information about the Bureau from what I'm able to see. The history and overview section was mostly copied from this. UnilandofmaTalk 15:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in San Marino

List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in San Marino (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)

Claims to be a list, but it has only one entry about some obscure stratigraphic unit located in San Marino. Same thing goes for the list in Moldova, which I'm also nominating here. Obviously, lists with one entry shouldn't exist. Finding this, I also stumbled on the rabbit hole that are the mess of lists fossiliferous stratigraphic units. For example, the list for Bosnia and Herzegovina has only two entries, no lead (as with the case for many of these articles), and apparently all of these lists point to the same source. Should probably merge the content on these stratigraphic unit lists somewhere, but I do not know where exactly. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 15:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Europe. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both. There may be individual strata which are notable, but it's hard to imagine that anyone has provided notability for national lists of them. I am not convinced that a merger would be justified even if a target were found, given that only one source is evident. M kuhner (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Let's just Delete all of them. They are a non-list and the textbook definition of failing the fluf- I mean WP:GNG.
★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. FOARP (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Kamrud

Kamrud (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)

Deprodded. Iranian village stub with no legal recognition, sourced only to maps and census records, created in violation of the GNG sourcing requirement of WP:MASSCREATE. –dlthewave ☎ 14:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as the stub lacks relevant content to be considered significant. It fails WP:NSETTLEMENT and the source are not reliable and violate WP:GNG.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - I held off on this one because of the ruins near the same site and the possibility that they might have SIGCOV, however, I could not find any, and ultimately this appears to have simply been a census counting unit. FOARP (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Nom comment - This was part of a batch of Carlossuarez46 creations that were previously deleted per this discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per Dlthewave explanation. Svartner (talk) 12:56, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. FOARP (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sahra-ye Jonub-e Guged

Sahra-ye Jonub-e Guged (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)

Deprodded. Iranian village stub with no legal recognition, sourced only to census records, created in violation of the GNG sourcing requirement of WP:MASSCREATE. –dlthewave ☎ 14:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - No known location, impossible to confirm whether it is a village or not. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    As an update, the name of this location is simply: "Desert South of Guged". Since the Iranian census uses points in the desert for counting nomads, this could well be such a counting-point. FOARP (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per Dlthewave explanation. Svartner (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NPLACE. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 14:19, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Arline Rossi

Arline Rossi (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 believe I probably should not have created this page, and so I am nominating my own creation for deletion.

Judge Rossi was a Referee in Bankruptcy, a position that no longer exists, but is comparable with a Bankruptcy judge. Per WP:USJUDGE, bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable.

I created this page with the mistaken belief that Judge Rossi was the first woman in the U.S. to become a bankruptcy referee (a fact that would have made her notable.) However, I have since become aware that Judge Rossi was not the first female bankruptcy referee in the U.S. -- see this page here: https://ncbj.org/women-in-bankruptcy/

As such, I now believe that Judge Rossi may not be sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. IGAEB (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is unlikely sources to establish notability exist, and as the person is deceased, none are likely to arise in the future. I couldn't find anything. I appreciate the nominator's self-correction here. M kuhner (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • DELETE being a first does not guarantee a standalone article and as per WP:USJUDGE the position is not notable. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:G7 and also appears to be none notable PeriodicEditor (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was merge to Obsession (2025 film). Star Mississippi 03:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nikki (character)

Nikki (character) (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)
Information 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:Obsession (2025 film) § Character page for Nikki
 – FaviFake (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Merging to Obsession (2025 film)

It looks like a separate article has been created for the character Nikki, mostly written by @AdobongPogi. It seems a bit premature at this point: the "Role" section is just a synopsis of the film, and the references just seem to be part of the marketing push for the film. Some of the background info would probably be appropriate for this article though. James (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, I fixed some of the issues pointed by @JamesHenstridge. First of all, I have shortened the role description to reflect only the character's point of view. Moreover, I have deleted those references which concerned marketing aspects because they mostly referred to the film promotion and had little connection to the character in question. Still, I consider that some information about the concept and background of the character might be helpful for WP:NCHAR. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 07:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Bht I'd also like to hear the opinions of other editors participating in the discussion. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 08:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Not 100% on policy, but isn't a separate article usually reserved for characters that achieve notoriety over and above or separate from the media they are introduced in? I think here of Lady Dimitrescu and Resident Evil Village. Seems premature in this case where I'm not aware of any coverage that doesn't consider the character in the context of the film? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Support merge: I would agree that there isn’t a real reason for her to have her own page. Like yeah she’s the highlight, but that’s not worth a whole page. Characters like Ripley or Laurie Strode appear in multiple films across decades and are cited in other media, thus them having their own pages, while Nikki is a character in a single film that has been out for two weeks. A section in the Obsession page about Nikki’s reception and her performance would be sufficient. TropicAces (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
It also seems unlikely she'll appear in more films at this point. In this article the writer/director says he is interested in creating a sequel, but says it would not feature the same characters. James (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: This matter seems comparable to Erik Campbell (Final Destination) which survived its AfD here and is now a Featured Article. What are the differences? Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and WP:SIGCOV says to be more than trivial mentions but does not need to be the main topic. We do not have to fit everything in one article and sometimes WP:SPLIT out sub-articles like for production if there is abundant content. Technically, this and Erik Campbell are sub-articles. Also worth noting that an in-between solution could be a Characters in Obsession (2025 film) article that could have sections for each of the characters, if there is also character-specific coverage about those besides this one, more than could fit in the main article. There's nothing inherently detrimental about standalone fictional-character articles as long as the content is there. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge: Reception is very weak, and I was not able to find any sigcov of her. Regarding Erik's idea for a character list, that could be a good target for merging it to, as well as the main film article. I'm really not sure which one of those is the better idea. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 16:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge: No reason that the casting and make-up information cannot be moved to #Production and thematic analysis and reviews to #Reception (especially, but not because, those sections are short). Not sure how the Erik article became Featured, but the Obsession article can, and would definitely benefit, from details. For that matter, the soundtrack also doesn't need a separate article. Filmgoer (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Merge - Neither page is so overly long where a split would be needed, and a lot of information regarding the plot and development of the character either already is or should also be included on the film's article. Additionally, this is definitely a situation where the context provided by the main film's article is pretty essential to understand the development and reception of the character, per WP:NOPAGE. Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • keep. Notable popular character, well sourced and written page. Why not leave it? TheMovieGuy (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's any character that appears only singular film like Anton Chigurh (No Country for Old Men). But the subject (Nikki) is clearly notable and discussed in multiple sources in depth. Earlier, I agreed that one section were too long (Role) or included unnecessary material, but those parts have already been cleaned up and shortened. Some film-related content connected to the character could still be trimmed further, though that is a content issue rather than a reason to delete the article. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 23:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    I second this TheMovieGuy (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nikki has been a breakthrough character, receiving significant coverage and discussion independent of the film itself. If other characters that appear in one film have articles, what does it hurt this character to have one? The Baudelaire Fortune 21:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • STRONG MERGE: The fact that this is even up for debate is respectfully, well, it's just baffling to me; the film itself is what is in serious discussion right now. Despite how vital this character is, it is, let's remember, just over two weekends since the film premiered theatrically. The created article, as I am reading right now and going over as I am typing this, has in fact been filled out with actually really nice extensive information that is not currently in the film article (credit where due and all this could easily be inserted verbatim into the main article; links and all where appropriate). It still all feels a little too hasty at the moment. Now, say Navarrette actually does get nominated for a Academy Award for Best Actress. Then that's a whole other story. I believe the Aunt Gladys article in relation to the Weapons film wasn't created until after Amy Madigan won the award, if I'm remembering correctly. As well as now having a spin-off film centered around her slated for release. A sequel to this is not confirmed, this character is not confirmed to appear in any further capacity at all. All we have so far that I can see from the created piece is that interview with the actress that states that an easter egg in the filmmakers' next picture states that the character has been criminally charged. Again, hypothetical until that film actually is released. User:Cartoon Boy (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    It is okay not confirmed character not was appear on future. In this subject was remarkable not only some articles about characters appears in singular film. Some of the character facts maybe was notable since some publications (especially the film) mentioned her and breakthrough role. In fact the refs that used that have SIGCOV around her character. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 04:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge all the context of the character in terms of the plot, casting, performance could easily be put into the film article. Some of these website's i'm totally unfamiliar with. What makes sites like FanBolt, The Direct, or Couch Soup reliable? Almost all discussion of the character involves either the actress or the film itself and these pieces could easily be moved to either or both with little loss. While I understand the "not paper" argument, this is all information that could be better to expand either of the other articles which aren't significantly long or require a reader to be familiar with either the actress or the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Keep i dunno but i feel the character has the potential to become notable now and in the future. I was a bit surprised and confused maybe that the article was too long, thought i think some parts of her paragraphs are still fine to me. And I think some sources mention her in the future since her role considering as breakthrough.
    ~2026-31601-27 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    All information that can easily be put into the film and can't really be discussed outside the context of the actor or the film itself. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge: Too minor for an article in my opinion. Girl, I Like Opossums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girl, I Like Opossums! (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge: Available information about Nikki could reasonably be included in the "Plot" or "Cast" sections of this article, or where the film/Navarette received praise for Nikki's character development. If she becomes notable in the future than a standalone article can always be remade. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this does end in a merge, I highly recommend leaving the article's history intact so that if/when more coverage becomes available in the future, it can be restored. I know that's sometimes the default, but occasionally you'll have cases where the article is deleted and a redirect created in its place so I wanted to make this note. I have no opinion on current notability but the sourcing does give off the impression that future notability is possible. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong merge. Obviously not notable outside of the context of the film. I agree with user who suggested it was a bizarre conversation to even be having in the first place. Cringe at best. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Merge (With notes). While the character has become a major talking point online, most of it lines up with the typical buzz around new/recently released movies. As other editors noted, it's not guaranteed the character of Nikki will appear in future movies should sequels be made, and the Easter egg noted by the director isn't strong enough to support creation of a separate article either. I support a merge only if it results in a section/category for the character, it's online reception, and impact (The noted easter egg can be added to this too). I would support a separate character article in the future should there be multiple sequels in which the character of Nikki has active roles in, OR if the buzz around the character results in long lasting cultural impact (Like what happened with Mako Mori from Pacific Rim resulting in the "Mako Mori Test"). SuperKatana98 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Definitely a merge. This page should be confined to the context of the recent film, since that is standard operating procedure for almost all movie characters, other than the truly iconic ones who become household names and need no further explanation. James Bond, Indiana Jones, etc. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge. As others have stated, the film hasn't even been out for that long Radiohead lover 69 (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge, but not ruling out a future separate article. Chiming in from the "the movie has barely been out for two weeks" camp. Nikki's character is absolutely compelling and Inde Navarrette gave an outstanding performance, but a standalone article for Nikki Freeman is premature. The long-term impact the character will have on horror/pop culture right now, as of this moment, isn't concrete and relies primarily on conjecture and personal opinion. There needs to be more time and tangible proof of legacy before we can discern whether or not that impact warrants a separate article. I'd say wait a while and see how the film/the character holds up to award season and revisit the topic of a separate article then. Syd Highwind (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge (for now) I believe it's been too soon for Nikki to be considered a character worthy of an entire Wikipedia article due to the movie trending currently which inflates cultural significance, however as time goes on and the movie is no longer trendy she may become a character worthy of an entire article. Inkeptiss (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge. It's too soon to determine how iconic the character will end up becoming. Bachwiz18 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge I don't believe the character holds enough cultural significance to have an entire article. If the film becomes a franchise then it becomes justifiable, but the article currently existing singularly seems to be an effect of the films popularity. Itsirlpidge (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge This movie has only been out 2 weeks. This movie needs to stand the test of time and become a horror classic to warrant a separate article on Nikki. Separate articles are usually reserved for horror icons like Jason Voorhees, Pennywise, Sidney Prescott etc who have become iconic over time and are usually in franchises. Just because a movie is trending now, does not mean it is an instant classic overnight. The characters from iconic horror films that have stood the test of time such as Get Out and Hereditary don't even have articles of their own. Nikki certainly does not fulfill WP:GNG. Kala7992 (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Strong merge per above comments. While people talk about it, not only is it "not enough" per se, I'll also side on the time-based criteria people have on characters. Nicole. Oh, she's elegantly clandestine... ✨ 12:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge I don't think a dedicated article for this character is really justified at this point in time. Perhaps with time if she proves to be an iconic character, but for now I think this information could just been included in the film's article. -Euphoria42 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Support merge but not to rule out a future separate article. Definitely some framework here for the future that should be saved just in case, but at this point in time, the character isn't established enough yet to warrant an article for herself. Merging would also substantiate the Obsession article. Kpedimbourg (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per above comments. Jantokiilo (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per my comments above. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per all. Most of the coverage is integrated with the film and not a separate topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge I second Euphoria42. I think there is a chance (especially from what I've been seeing online) that Nikki will end up becoming an iconic character deserving of an article, but for now it is too early and there is not enough sources to justify the division right now. FactMaster007 (talk) 20:26, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Nera (Danube). (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Padina Bașchii River

Padina Bașchii River (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)

Very minor river, 1-2 km long. No significant coverage, according to this map it is east of the village Sasca Română. Markussep Talk 09:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Nera (Danube), where it was correctly listed as a tributary until Markussep removed it in 2016. They then tried to delete this and dozens of other small rivers in Romania because "No evidence that this river exists", which I reverted on most of those already because it was not so hard to prove this to be incorrect. So now this... No idea why, per WP:ATD, this shouldn't be redirected (and listed again at Nera). Rather disruptive sequence of events. Fram (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    This Padina Bașchii is a very small stream, of local importance at most; the river Nera must have several dozens of these as tributaries. The only evidence (that I could find) that this river exists is the hiking map I referred to above. In my 2016 edit, I selected the tributaries that I could find in the Atlasul cadastrului apelor din România (the reference given in the Nera article), some of which are also rather small and not notable in themselves. In my opinion, it doesn't improve the Nera article to mention every little stream that discharges into it. In fact, that would just clutter up the article, and make it impossible to see which are the main tributaries of the Nera. Markussep Talk 18:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Rural Institute of Higher Studies

Rural Institute of Higher Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, not individually notable, could be merged to Fakir Mohan University. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nkiru Vera Nwadinobi

Nkiru Vera Nwadinobi (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)

Nominating per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR as well as GNG. SatnaamIN (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - poorly sourced for a BLP. In fact, it's been made worse, and no explanation of the academic rank has been provided. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Karat Kallehlu

Karat Kallehlu (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 notability. Sourced only to census records, coordinates point to a forested area with no sign of a settlement. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - This probably should have just been speedied under WP:G4. This was an article deleted as part of the clean up of Carlossuarrez46's abadi articles. Put simply, there is no way of knowning if this is a gneuine village or just another point on the map which the Iranian authorities use to count the Iranian census with. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
No problem with deletion. PAper GOL (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
My attempt was to recreate only a small portion of those mass-deleted articles as they were actually populated and could be found on some maps satellite images. This one however has no exact location, so I have no reason to oppose deletion.PAper GOL (talk) 08:04, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The List: What's In and Out

The List: What's In and Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Has been tagged unsourced since 2012. Misterpotatoman (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Reference search shows others use the expression "what's in and out" regularly. No one seems to be referencing this list as though it was notable. Dream Focus 20:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was not able to find any discussion of this list at all, so merging to the WaPo article would be useless. M kuhner (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to just be republishing these "lists" from the WaPo articles. SupermarketCake (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 09:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Aryaan Din

Aryaan Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Cited sources are WP:PRIMARY. BookishReader (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - poorly sourced; three citations to one source is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 09:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Amer Karim

Amer Karim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Trivial coverage, WP:NOTCV. BookishReader (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Herman Nikièma. Uncontroversial merge. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hermann Nikiéma

Hermann Nikiéma (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 Herman Nikièma because both articles are about the same person. Moreover I suggest to then move to Hermann Nikièma as more correct spelling Robby (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Henry Thomas (Hadley) Williams

Henry Thomas (Hadley) Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV, seems to fail WP:NPROF and generally WP:BIO. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 12:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, England, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: insufficiently notable, per nom. Searching reveals not much beyond the Plarr's Lives of the Fellows entry cited in the article. One mention in The Lancet in 1899, and one obituary in the Canadian Medical Association Journal republished in a few places. --AntiDionysius (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Some coverage in this book as well as the obituary in the Canadian Medical Journal. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Obituary in the New York Times Jahaza (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    Is that enough to meet GNG? AntiDionysius (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    He was head of the surgical education division at a large Ontario university, I would assume that passes PROF. My thoughs: The NY Times wouldn't publish an obituary for an unknown Canadian doctor; even at the time of his death, the Times was a hoity toity newspaper, so to be published in it was a big deal. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah, I don't think it's enough for GNG by itself, but, of course, it's not the only source found so far. It is sigcov contra the deletion reason of "No WP:SIGCOV"." However, I think that if the NY Times publishes an obit of a foreign professor at that time period it's usually enough to show that they had sufficient renown for it to be a proxy for WP:NPROF #5 in the present day. Jahaza (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm on the fence about this one; he led the University surgical department until 1931. He has no entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia that I can find . He's got about a one page biography in this book page 205-206. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - ProQuest has The life of London's Dr Hadley Williams in Medical Post in 1998 (more than sixty years after his death). Together with the NYT obit and the already cited materials, this suggests that Hadley Williams meets the GNG with sustained SIGCOV coverage. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    Good find! Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep; passes GNG. Chris has made some great improvements to the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - looks like the page has been improved. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have always considered an obit in a major newspaper to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - obituary in a newspaper of record is the gold standard for notability between 1861 and 1961. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

National Council for Library and Information Services Act (No. 6 of 2001)

National Council for Library and Information Services Act (No. 6 of 2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources, appears to fail WP:GNG. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 12:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: The page currently is just a rewriting of the primary source material. I can't find any real secondary source coverage. Not every law needs to have an article; if it's notable enough to merit one, that should be reflected in secondary sources. --AntiDionysius (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah, agreed with the delete idea. Very niche content with limited external sourcing that is reliable. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:59, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was speedy deleted by Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Alex Obatre Lumumba

Alex Obatre Lumumba (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)

Almost no independent, secondary coverage, appears to fail WP:BIO. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 12:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Non-notable and promo. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Not an WP:NPOL office. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. I had previously missed that he was on the Texas state legislature, which did not feature prominently in the previous version of the article. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 12:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Samuel G. Haynie

Samuel G. Haynie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NPOL and WP:BIO. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 11:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This individual was a member of both national (Republic of Texas) and state legislatures, which should satisfy WP:NPOL, WP:BIO. This may be more of an article organization issue as Haynie is arguably better known for being mayor of Austin, but I have since updated the article to better reflect this. Johnmand (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Weqaya

Weqaya (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:CORP, no enough references, no achievement and Not a well-known company, The company was also delisted from the stock exchange and its operations were frozen in2022. It is currently considered almost dead; even its official website is not working. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 11:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Information Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Related discussions: 2019-02 LLH Hospital (closed as ✗ delete)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 3 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. As per book reviews added to the article. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 12:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Peter R. Moody Jr.

Peter R. Moody Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NPROF. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 11:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

USS Stanley Dace

USS Stanley Dace (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)

Title is a fictional ship featured in one episode of JAG (TV series) but not mentioned there. Stub has been blanked and redirected there twice and reverted twice; AFD is the proper venue to reach consensus on contested BLARs. I don't think a merge is appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The best source I could find is a three sentence excerpt from a 2025 article from the Navy "Also in 1998, a belated Bronze Star with Combat V was awarded to Chief Boatswain’s Mate Stanley Dace (posthumously). Dace had been instrumental in the survival of many men in the aft end of the ship and was the last man off. (An episode of the television show JAG featured a fictitious ship, the USS Stanley Dace.)" Nighfidelity (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

"CARET" Drone sightings

"CARET" Drone sightings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

THere seems to be no real coverage of this outside fringe sources, and now the creater is saying it should be delelted. Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, California, and Nevada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: qualifies for regular deletion per nom, but given the author requested deletion, and that author has written 85% of the page, I think it qualifies for WP:CSDG7. --AntiDionysius (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks, Anti. LanaiGuy (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    Are you not now trying to get the page rescued? Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or Speedy, either way, insufficient WP:RS sourcing to justify a standalone article. The story holds that a top secret Palo Alto lab project to reverse engineer alien technology called CARET created advanced drone craft, and the evidence is a bunch of disconnected photo images, which may or may not be a hoax.
A single WP:FRIND source (passing mention of part of the story by Robert Sheaffer) is not enough. The rest is all WP:SPS blogs and WP:PRIMARY docs from fringe players like MUFON, or WP:SENSATIONAL stories from Gizmodo, Fox, ScreenRant and NBC11 featuring one UFO photo with a "what is it?" tease, but no serious coverage that documents the frankly convoluted story laid out in the article. If better sources should emerge, a paragraph in List of UFO-related hoaxes or UFO conspiracy theories would be appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the discussions on the talk page where editors looked for but were unable to find viable sources, as well as the primary author's request. Rjjiii (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I have INDEFfed LanaiGuy for a multitude of reasons. Suggest letting this run to consensus so there's something to point back to. Star Mississippi 01:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom and to oblige Star Mississippi. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 07:48, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Stefano Crisci

Stefano Crisci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as NN since 2012, and I don't see what could bring this footballer over the notability bar. No sigcov in sight. Geschichte (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article isn't minimally acceptable to stay live due to the lack of referencing to prove the notability of the subject.--Leuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - poorly sourced; one citation and one external link are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Ceki Benşuşe

Ceki Benşuşe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources that focus on the person independently of the musical band. Kolhisli (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - Until a moment ago this article looked like it had a blue link to his band Seferad, but that was actually an inappropriate spelling-related redirect to something else (a historical geographic name) and I removed it. So Mr. Benşuşe's band does not have an article here and I can find no evidence that they have achieved notability. This specific article on Mr. Benşuşe has no claim for his own independent achievements outside of the band, and I can find no evidence on that matter either. There is no place to redirect per WP:BANDMEMBER, so delete. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Star Mississippi 12:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Western Premiership One

Western Premiership One (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 enough in-depth coverage on independent reliable sources other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage to justify WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Tried draftifing but the creator just did a copy-paste move back to mainspace. Vestrian24Bio 13:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - PRIMARY sources are scattered throughout the article. Additional searches didn't yield anything secondary with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 10:44, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Star Mississippi 12:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Dunes League T20

Dunes League T20 (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 enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage to justify WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 13:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Only some ROUTINE announcements stuff out there....no SIGCOV at all. As of now, WP:TOOSOON to have a standalone page. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 09:02, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎
The result was delete. Originally closed as no consensus by Spartaz, I am reclosing it after discussing it with him.
We don't keep an article until its source can be checked. We create an article after we've checked the sources. Notability is indeed about the existence of sources, but none of the Keeps here was able to confirm that the cited book does, in fact, provide significant coverage of the subject. The WP:BURDEN of proof has always been on those claiming the existence of coverage. If and when such confirmation is provided, the deleted page history can be restored behind a newly created, sourced stub. Owen× ☎ 11:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Patrick Egan (Catholic priest)

Patrick Egan (Catholic priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable nor is there valid sources Kivi36 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Kivi36 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of in depth third party coverage. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you! Kivi36 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete doing a Google search I found nothing about him, the name Patrick Egan is a very common name, I came across stories about a Patrick Egan in the United States thou. Catfurball (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks! Kivi36 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Patrick Egan" may be a common name, but combining it with "Clonard" yields useful results, including significant coverage in a book. StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assertion of sources is not the same of sources. please provide what was found for evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - per StAnselm. Spleodrach (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    Read Spartzaz comment. Assertion of sources is not the same of sources. please provide what was found for evaluation. Kivi36 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
The problem is there is no evidence you carried out WP:BEFORE. And yes, I added a source to the article. StAnselm (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. StAnselm now provides one source in the article: McCann, Michael (2019). Burnt Out: How 'the Troubles' Began. Mercier Press. p. 140. Retrieved 5 May 2026.. However, this book is used to reference an assertion not about the article subject, but about an event he was involved in. It is not clear from StAnselm's comment above how much, if anything, this source says about the article subject, and the linked Google preview is inaccessible. Since we have not been provided with sources that cover the article subject in depth, I concur that there is insufficient sourcing for notability. Sandstein 15:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete arguments are persuasive. Relisting feels like a potential waste of time. However, there's just enough assertion regarding sources that a relist seems less likely to result in DRV for this one, and that would be a poorer use of time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep at least until the book Burnt Out can be checked to see whether the evidence it provides really is as limited as Sandstein assumes. Notability is about the existence of sources not how extensively they have been incorporated into the article. It is not necessary for it to be available online.
If on the other hand the problem is WP:1E then the solution is to rename the article to refer to that incident and remove information irrelevant to that. An event repeatedly claimed to have sparked the Troubles is surely notable. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This feels like a rare case where extra input is required and the new keep is so conditional that it doesn't feel like a resolution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Consensus here is that article is clearly a mess, and not fit for the mainspace (not to mention violating our policies on AI writing). While I'm inclined to think we'd be better off starting from scratch here, if anyone is interested just ask and I will restore to draftspace. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence in pharmacy

Artificial intelligence in pharmacy (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)

AI-generated "X in Y" article. This is a real subject, and all of the references I checked do exist. But the article is so superficial and one-sided it reads like an investment pitch. The statement that AI tools have been particularly useful for drug discovery...for tasks like virtual screening, structure-activity relationship (SAR) modeling, and de novo molecule generation is cited to a source that does not mention pharmacy or pharmaceutical science at all, and is cheerfully, confidently wrong (I have some knowledge of this field and I can confidently say AI's results in drug discovery have been an extremely mixed bag, to put it charitably). Note also the abbreviation defined once and then never used again. In principle these faults could be corrected with editing, but the article is such a mess that it needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. Let a competent human that doesn't keep Sam Altman pinups above his bed write the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Artificial intelligence, and Suspected AI-generated articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:TNT until a human can rewrite it JMWt (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:NEWLLM. Even without the AI-concerns, there are weasel words like

    Experts say that for the future of AI in pharmacy, ...

    and sentences stating something fairly obvious without explaining why or saying anything further about it;

    If an AI model is trained on a biased dataset, it can give misleading results which could harm patients.

    --Gurkubondinn 09:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep — I have rewritten the article since my earlier Draftify comment and the position has changed. The nominator's specific concerns are now addressed. The misused citation (Sarker 2022, cited for pharmaceutical science claims despite covering only general AI) has been removed and replaced with two peer-reviewed drug discovery reviews. The unsourced claim tagged {{cn}} since June 2025 has been removed. The drug discovery section, which the nominator correctly identified as one-sided, now includes a limitations paragraph covering training data dependence and the gap between virtual screening performance and clinical trial success. Weasel constructions ("Experts say...") and promotional register have been removed throughout. The article now covers drug discovery, drug delivery, drug safety, clinical decision support, pharmacy operations, medication adherence, regulatory frameworks, and ethical challenges, with 14 validated inline citations drawn from peer-reviewed journals including Nature, Chemical Reviews, and Pharmaceutics. A pharmacy automation image has been added. The article has been assessed at B-class. The topic clearly meets WP:GNG — coverage in major pharmaceutical and clinical pharmacy journals is extensive. The original quality problems have been corrected. WP:TNT is no longer warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks19923 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we review the rewrite or is this unsaveable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete this slop. A rewrite isn't good enough. This needs to be redone from scratch. Cortador (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    I read the revised version and while it has some decent sources, it's fairly awful. I can't quite recommend delete because of the sources, but I'm sympathetic to the idea of rewriting from scratch, because the flabby AI writing is painful. It's a grab-bag of stuff with no logical connections (how is a pillbox that records when it's opened "AI"?) and everything is so vague and insubstantial. It's all "have been proposed" / "have been applied" / "have been used". What do we learn by hearing that X has been applied to Y? What happened? Did it work?
    It also suffers from not ever clarifying what it means by "AI." LLMs? Expert systems? Machine learning? (Unfortunately the literature may not clarify this either. There's money to be made in being equivocal about "AI".)
    Also--though this could be fixed--a lot of the sources are multiple instances of the same few articles, sometimes with minor variations in citation formatting. That makes me wonder if a source to text correctness check has actually been done, because I'd think this would have been noticed. M kuhner (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify: This can be fixed, it just has to be recited and redone from scratch with no LLM usage. This article is clearly not ready for the mainspace, so it should have some time and sent to AfC when the new version is complete. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify: This is a legitimate topic, but the article is clearly not ready for mainspace. In particular, what kind of AI is being used? What happened as a result of its applications? I think we should at least keep the sources list, flawed as it is, but any version of this article suitable for mainspace would have to be a major revision of what we currently have.
ScienceD90 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
I have fixed all the duplicate citations, bumping the count from 19 citations down to 13. Some of these were in the same sections and one instance was in a single paragraph. ScienceD90 (talk) 03:13, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft merge to Shane Williams. Based on no significant discussion, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft merge. Editors are free to remove the articles from the merge backlog or reverse the merge by splitting the articles back out. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 02:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

List of international rugby union tries by Shane Williams

List of international rugby union tries by Shane Williams (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)

Don't think it meets WP:NLIST as a stand alone article. Propose merging to Shane Williams as a WP:ATD. As the try is one of, if not the most important player stat in Rugby Union. Similar discussion here. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 12:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Mike Minogue (businessman)

Mike Minogue (businessman) (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)

Unelected candidate for governor of Massachusetts. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete and oppose a redirect as search results will give a better overview of him rather than an election he contested. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
I do find it very interesting that the article was not given its usual week or so of existence before being nominated for deletion a mere 12 hours or so after its creation. Just a thought. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
@Fakescientist8000 It came up while I was looking at the new pages feed for NPP. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
@EaglesFan37 It doesn't seem very in good faith to camp NPP feeds and tag those that are very clearly undergoing expansion/creation as being for deletion. The entire argument for deletion also completely disregards Minogue's time as CEO of Abiomed, which (although I haven't gotten around to adding it to the article yet) is perhaps a more notable part of his biography than him running for governor of Massachusetts. There's a reason the descriptor is "businessman" and not "American politician". Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 11:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
@Fakescientist8000 For NPP, any page that is over an hour old is eligible to be nominated for deletion. This page did not have a tag that said that it was under construction, and if the article was not ready for the mainspace, it should have been left in drafts. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
@EaglesFan37 There is a significant difference in the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Again, this just appears to be camping NPP pages until you find pages that you don't deem good enough for mainspace, notably without giving time for potential updates that are constructive. You gained the NPP role less than a month ago under the assumption you were going to use it constructively. Have you? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
@Fakescientist8000 I have used it constructively. You've spent more prose in this AFD questioning my competence and casting WP:ASPERSIONS rather than the article itself. If you have an issue with my conduct, take it to the appropriate noticeboards. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
@EaglesFan37 No, I do not believe you have. You sit around NPP boards and tag article with clear disregard for potential constructive edits, which does nothing to contribute to the project except cause unproductive discussion such as this, which could be used to help with the article. I sincerely wish you take a look through some more WP guidelines before requesting another important role in order to prevent further abuse. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Fakescientist8000:. EaglesFan37 came across this article due to them being a new pages patroller. New pages patrol is specifically tasked with looking at new pages to see if they meet our notability standards (among other things) and taking action where they do not. It's ok to disagree with their perspective, but implying they have done something wrong by "sit[ting] around NPP boards and tag [ging] article with clear disregard for potential constructive edits" is unfair.
In future, if you want to avoid your articles winding up here, you should ensure that they have two or more reliable sources which give significant coverage (say two or three paragraphs) in the reference section when you create it.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue Fair enough. Have a great rest of your day! Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 11:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV about his time at Abiomed to establish notability either. --John B123 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment New sources have been added to the page overnight. One is a primary source relating to Minogue's non-political career, and so does not count for notability purposes. The other is an article from the Boston Globe .
It is clear that the subject does not pass the specific criteria of WP:NPOL, but we still need to consider WP:GNG. At the minute, there are two possible reliable sources on the article, the Boston Globe and this from WBUR. I'm not sure on whether we should be considering WBUR as one of our sources, given as it is a local Boston source and so perhaps merely routine coverage? I think the Globe would probably be unchallenged as a national level source. I would leave analysis of these two sources to my American colleagues, as I find judging what kind of source should count towards notability in these cases a little tricky due to my unfamiliarity with the American media landscape.
My worry here is WP:ONEEVENT, I think that the level of coverage demonstrated is marginal, and completely absent outside of the context of the Governor run. So perhaps a redirect to the candidates list section of the election article, technically a merge given the length of the Minogue article, might be best here.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or Draftify. There is certainly nothing in the current version that passes either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, as stated by the nom. I do not see the recent additions by the OP as adding anything useful, and did not see much that passes WP:42 in a quick search (WP:BEFORE), just standard political releases. I am also unconvinced by the {{Under construction}} tagging. It may be that further down towards the actual voting he gets enough WP:42 coverage that a draft might be accepted. At present it is WP:TOOSOON by our lagging-indicator standards.Ldm1954 (talk) 05:18, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Daffy (company)

Daffy (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the corporation notability guideline WP:NCORP Historyexpert2 (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. Lots of independent coverage from reputable third party sources including Fortune, (multiple) Fast Company, and CNBC (which surprised me as a source categorized as marginally reliable). Per WP:NCORP, “A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” This is true in this case. I also added two more mentions in The New York Times.

Jenny8lee (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Both passing, promotional mentions by the same author and you have a COI to New York Times Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, I almost speedied this when I first saw it a while ago. The references do not amount to a WP:NCORP pass, and the article is rather promotional. MediaKyle (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Kalidi Batuusa

Kalidi Batuusa (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 didn't find any coverage about him. Svartner (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete All I could find about him was coverage of him being one of 2 Ugandan athletes being deported from Australia. Fails WP:GNG. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment There seems to be only the slightly odd story of him going missing - and possibly being deported. But doubt that would help. Suggests he competed at one more Commonwealth games, mind you. Still, most coverage seems to be in passing that I can see. Porterjoh (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more on the other games and the deportation. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Manoranjan Roy

Manoranjan Roy (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 didn't find any coverage about him. Svartner (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV about him. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Include details of performance in Bangladesh at the 2010 Commonwealth Games and then delete. Performance details are already included in Bangladesh at the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Subject does not meet WP:NSPORT BleachPuffin (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 12:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Muhammad Hammad

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Hammad (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)

Created per account Muhammadhammadalviofficial (talk · contribs). There is a WP:BOMBARD of sources about the club he represented, but lacks in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The only major stuff on him I could find was here (which at least references him winning something) and which is a primary source. Porterjoh (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: in the interest of completeness, the first nomination from 2021 ended in withdrawal at a time of lower inclusion standards in this topic area (namely, NFOOTBALL still existed), and obviously that result should not have any bearing on any 2026 consensus. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete and redirect to Philadelphia Athletics (American Association) all-time roster. Spartaz Humbug! 14:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Sam Campbell (baseball)

Sam Campbell (baseball) (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 only uses low-quality sources which do not comply with the part of the general notability guideline that says a source must cover the topic "directly and in detail". Qwerty123M (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete with note - I will note that per WP:SPORTBASIC, articles should exist if there is presumed significant coverage of the subject. A lot of old-timey base ball players don't have more than a stub because unfortunately there just aren't many editors who are interested in updating their pages, and quality sources for these articles are more likely to be print than available online. So I wouldn't go crazy trying to AfD any baseball player that only has stats for a source.
However, in this case, given that the subject only played two games and a search online really turned up next to nothing, I would say delete here. Yojo98 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment If not kept, redirect to 1890 Philadelphia Athletics season#Roster as there is a source supporting his inclusion. I do not believe outright deletion is appropriate in situations where a redirect to a team roster will suffice. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment/Redirect: under normal circumstances I'd say keep an MLB player, as sources are generally easy to find and it's just a matter of people not doing the research. However, this is a lot less true in the 19th century outside of the National League. By this point (early October 1890), the AA Philadelphia Athletics were basically already closed up and they were just finding whoever they could for the final few games. Campbell appears to be one of those people (alongside a few others that we don't even have first names for). As such, I think this is a situation where a redirect to the season is appropriate, as there really isn't any coverage of him. It took pulling teeth to find the game log for the two games he played, which confirms that he did in fact play second base in those two games, but that's not enough for GNG. It's an interesting anecdote for the 1890 season article that they had to pull non-notable people for the final series, but that's all it is. Wizardman 02:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect - David Nemec's The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball has a brief entry on this player, but it lists him under a different first name and begins "Nothing is known for certain about Campbell..." which 1) would be difficult to argue counts as a source towards GNG and 2) isn't encouraging towards the prospects of finding any other sources. The target suggested above is fine with me; Philadelphia Athletics (American Association) all-time roster is another possibility. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    The all-time roster was the page I was looking for -- huh, must've overlooked it. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 17:24, 25 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? 03:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy Trend Lite

Samsung Galaxy Trend Lite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG to become its own article, and there's only one source, which may not be reliable. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 23:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 23:21, 18 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? 03:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Temple of the Vampire

AfDs for this article:
Temple of the Vampire (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)

Has been deleted before and as far as I can tell nothing much has changed. The most reliable sources used in the article are mostly talking about how the group maybe doesn't really exist. Keyworth describes it as little more than a money-making scam. (p.366). The article is also pure LLM as far as I can tell. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is sigcov on it, then it is notable, whether the group is actually a membership organization or a scam or not. That an organization is good or bad or legitimate or illegitimate is of no relevance to notability. LLM issues if present may warrant a deletion but just because the group isn't a "real religion" doesn't mean it should or shouldn't have an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
And the last deletion was in 2006, when notability was based on vibes, and not any guideline. From a search, the subject is 100% notable, but there are signs of LLM involvement, so I am sympathetic to a deletion from that angle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep given Katzrockso's edits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: This Taylor&Francis source seems legitimate, as well as both book sources. Yes, it might be a scam or a hoax, but Wikipedia has articles on scams and hoaxes, as long as they are widely reported. As for AI, I can spot a few obvious AI tells, but I'm not sure the whole thing was fully AI-generated. It looks more like an AI copyedit or translation. Somepinkdude (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete The fact that it's a scam makes it more notable--unfortunately though I just can't find the sources. I found that Taylor and Francis article linked above--but can one scholarly source be enough to keep the page? I'm not sure. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Agnieszka653 It has an entry in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, sigcov in The Occult World, the Laycock book, at least, as well as lots of other coverage. I have verified at least that most of the sources in this article (except the ones that predate the group, and Williams) do discuss them.
    It is firmly notable, yes. My issue is the LLM stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    Stubifying it could solve that. Katzrockso (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
    Fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
    I stubified the article and am going to verify/reword the first two sentences next. Katzrockso (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I've stubified the article and verified the remaining content (had to remove a couple words) against the Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions source. The subject is notable, as the sources PARAKANYAA notes show. The entry in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions is 434 words, for note. Katzrockso (talk) 05:02, 21 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? 03:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as the issues have been addressed by stubification, and sufficient evidence has been given to demonstrate notability.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to ISTAF World Cup. Star Mississippi 12:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

2026 ISTAF World Cup

2026 ISTAF World Cup (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)

Sources only from Facebook (self-published source), appears to fail WP:NSPORT. Mariamnei (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails WP:NSPORT, lacks citations. I moved it to draft in the past, and the creator of the article moved it back to mainspace without significant improvements. -- HungryHighway🛣️ 11:27, 18 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? 03:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Mort Street

Mort Street (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 Civic, Australian Capital Territory because the article might not meet notability guidelines. MrActiniuMtalk 08:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, but with Braddon, Australian Capital Territory.--Grahame (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet WP:STREETS and WP:CBD is not alone enough to convey notability. I am !voting delete as there is actually very little in the article that would add value if merged to either of the targets suggested. Per WP:STREETS wikipedia is not a map composed of words, nor is it a street directory. If we take away the physical description of where the road is and what businesses or offices are located on it, what encyclopedic content is left to merge? Dfadden (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Oppose merge. There are at least 5 Mort Streets in New South Wales. Also fails WP:GEOROAD. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, but with Braddon, Australian Capital Territory I agree with --Grahame. This road is parallel to Lonsdale St in Braddon and should have more details about it in the Braddon article.LPascal (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • How exactly does this street being parallel to another more prominent street justify its inclusion in the Braddon article? What content do you propose to merge? That it is a street zoned for commercial uses and has offices of Telstra, some government departments and a bus interchange up the end of it that isnt even in Braddon? Dfadden (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:53, 18 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? 03:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Braddon, Australian Capital Territory as a WP:ATD. I feel like this would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for it. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing to merge - and there are tons of Mort Streets around the world, hencewhy it should not be a redirect to Braddon. Geschichte (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - there seems to be nothing notable about this particular Mort Street.Blackballnz (talk) 00:07, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Star Mississippi 12:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nagesh Chamle

Nagesh Chamle (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)

Various concerns. In addition to being outright non-notable biography, this article has miscited several sources..In Early life section, the cited source doesn't even talk about where he was brought up and when he played badminton, the source is just about scores listing. Every other source is the same, match information, results but nothing about him as a person. Also see WP:NBAD. While not considered for determining notability, the threshold given in the guideline is also not met. zglph•talk• 12:04, 18 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? 03:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Consensus is that her academic record, particularly her citation impact, supports a standalone article. Deletion !votes focused largely on whether her career was still at too early a stage, but did not persuasively show that she fails NPROF. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 05:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Leyla Soleymani

Leyla Soleymani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NPROF. Canada Research Chair is not equivalent to a named professorship, whereas packaging materials protecting food for this and that are developed in huge numbers (at least as scholarly publications); anyway, the news link is dead.

A retraction [1], where the subject is spotted with a team of PubPeer-familiar characters, additionally weighs against keeping this page. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the article you cited with the retraction has a different Leyla Soleymani as an author. The Soleymani in the retraction is at the Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran. H0n0r (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
That's a very important point you make, and something we should always keep in mind when considering retractions. For anglophone scientists "Leyla Soleymani" may look like a sufficiently unusual name to make it unlikely that there would be two of them, but if we were Iranian we might regard it as an everyday name. Athel cb (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

References

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Engineering, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and heavily cited publications . A tier 1 Canada Research Chair would likely pass #C5 but hers is tier 2. I think the Killam Prize may pass #2, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    Comment. The proposed application of C1 literally deconvolves here into "notable by virtue of being Ted Sargent's mentee." Is it supposed to work like this?
    On the other hand, "The meaning of 'substantial number of publications' and 'high citation rates' is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure." Assuming a "major research institution" being California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology or similar, I am still not so sure this CV passes, given how inflated citations are in this particular field.
    Nor am I sure that Killam Prize is not confused with Killam Fellowship, of which, per the same site, are 8600+, all / almost all in Canada. That does not look like a selective award. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Passes WP:NPROF comfortably. - The9Man Talk 07:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete weak delete: This BLP does not pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO in any of the sources mentioned on the page. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 20:24, 25 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? 03:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her Google Scholar profile is good, with an upward trend. Most of her papers have multiple authors, but enough of them have her as last author to give the impression that the work was done under her supervision. Athel cb (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep it. With h-index 43 by Google Scholar with 6K citations she appears to pass WP:NACADEMIC#1.--Zne0us Phenix (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. At first glance, citations look strong. I am however, seeing a lot of highly-cited but also highly-coauthored papers. Middle author (in a field where order matters) on such a paper doesn't convince me of so much. As far as awards go, I think that the Killam Prize would likely pass NPROF C2, but that the Dorothy Killam Fellowship is more on the order of a grant. Partially discounting highly-coauthored papers, the profile looks like a very good start, and on a trajectory for notability, but a few years WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, associate professor who has made a good start and, if it continues, should definitely pass WP:NPROF by the time she is promoted to a full professor; note her bio does call her an associate professor if you open it. She works in a fairly high citation field, and for me this is WP:TOOSOON.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    A correction: she appears to be a full professor already . I suspect this is recent and that the bio you linked has not yet been updated. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, the nomination of this article was flawed from the start with a citation from a completely different person, and a misunderstanding of the Killam Fellowship (8 are awarded per year). The subject has been promoted to a Tier 1 research chair, and is receiving media attention for aptamer research and product development. This nomination smacks of gender bias. H0n0r (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per David Eppstein, who I respect greatly on PROF issues, Athel cb, who's pointed out several matters, and H0n0r, with whom I'm in accord with on the issue of unconscious bias on English Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 04:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

7 Gold

7 Gold (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 highly doubt that these two sources would carry enough weight and content to verify much of this information. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - have you looked at the 40 citations for this article on the Italian wiki to see if they could be used here to satisfy notability requirements? Just because the current state of the article could be improved, doesn't automatically mean the topic is not notable. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 23:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    It's difficult for me to do that considering that I am not able to read Italian. I understand that there would be avenues to add citations such as by translating web pages but that would take far more time than nominating this article for deletion. Qwerty123M (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
    I have notified WikiProject Italy of this discussion and the need to add more references. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Applico

Applico (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)

Googling shows there is insufficient souring for this to be a notable organization Czarking0 (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete perhaps it is too soon for the subject to be deemed notable, but I didn't find sufficient reliable sources that provide the subject significant coverage to meet WP:NCORP.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete yes, it's a toosoon case. Unable to locate sufficient sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozzcircuit (talk • contribs) 08:35, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

BigTime Software

BigTime Software (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)

Heavy reliance on routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE), fails the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for organizations (WP:NCORP). And so the buck stops (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Illinois. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: I disagree that such coverage is routine but nearly all sources are press releases. The two that aren't (WSJ Pro, Fortune) don't describe the company beyond half a sentence so I agree these are Routine. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I appreciate the nominator's and Aaron Liu's concerns regarding WP:ROUTINE and the initial state of the article, I believe a deeper look at the sources shows that it meets WP:NCORP. We have multiple independent secondary sources that go beyond simple announcements:
  1. Enterprise Times (Jan 2022) . While triggered by a funding event, Steve Brooks's coverage includes significant independent editorial analysis of the company's market position, historical growth metrics, and its strategic place within the PSA vendor landscape. This demonstrates WP:CORPDEPTH.
  2. Enterprise Times (Jul 2022) & (Aug 2023) . These pieces provide independent evaluation of their M&A strategy, international expansion, and software capabilities, written by an industry analyst.
  3. Built In Chicago (2019) . Provides a broader profile of the company's history (founded as Edison's Attic, transition to SaaS) rather than just being a press release reprint.
While funding and acquisitions can sometimes fall under WP:ROUTINE, the Enterprise Times pieces provide the necessary analytical depth, market context, and editorial oversight required by NCORP, rather than just churnalism. The company is a major player in the PSA space (tracking billions in billable time) and has generated sufficient sustained industry interest.
Finally, per WP:ATD-E and WP:IMPERFECT, deletion is not the appropriate tool for cleanup. Since the external sources exist to establish notability, any remaining concerns about the article's formatting or missing inline citations should be addressed by applying maintenance tags (such as {{Refimprove}}) to encourage further editing, rather than resorting to deletion. Kedziorek1998d (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases Aaron Liu (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
@Kedziorek1998d Is this WP:AITALK? We want to make sure thoughts are not AI-generated as LLMs are good at generating language but not thinking. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu It is sad that we live in times when every statement is considered as AI-generated... Could you tell me more about why you think so? On the other hand, I feel appreciated because the comment seems so good (maybe too good?) that it looks like it was generated by llm, which was not the case here.
I based my opinion on content of the refs from article and my own knowledge of Wiki rules, which for sure could not be a perfect one. Do you concern Enterprise Times refs enough to don't be considered as WP:ROUTINE, don't you? Kedziorek1998d (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
GPTZero says that your entire comment is AI generated. I assure you that an accusation of AI usage is not a compliment. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
GPTZero is known to generate many false positives. It should not be seen as definitive proof of AI use on Wikipedia, more info: and . MojjoDojjo (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
[5] says: “GPTZero has a low false-positive (classifying a human-written text as machine-generated)” and [6] says “GPTZero is effective at detecting purely AI-generated content.”
In any case, I really don’t care how many studies you have about GPTZero: citing routine coverage and then taking it as a sign of notability is incorrect. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
In any case, regardless of whether this comment was AI-generated, it’s just plain wrong. The Enterprise Times sources adopt a non-neutral tone, so they cannot count towards notability. Also, both the Enterprise Times and Built in Chicago sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage about funding rounds, so they cannot count towards notability. There are many other things wrong with this comment, but plainly we need much better sources than these. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
WP:BIASED: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. WP:NPOV outlines the writing process for articles on Wikipedia. It does not demand neutrality from sources, like reporters and analysts. Claiming that a subject fails notability based on the tone used by these sources is misusing WP:BIASED. MojjoDojjo (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Never cited WP: BIASED, have no idea what you’re talking about. Not going to waste my time debating the merits of obviously routine coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
WP:POC? MojjoDojjo (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
More information based on WP:RSPLIST:
Didn't check all from WP:RSPLIST but it could be more. Kedziorek1998d (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I mentioned WSJ Pro above. The HuffPost article says "Contributor" (WP:UGC). The AP articles directly mention that they're just reprinted Business Wire press releases. Market reports are textbook WP:Routine coverage. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Fails GNG, could not find sufficient sourcing to rescue the article from a WP: BEFORE. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge: In relation to the article dated July 13, 2022, relating to the acquisition of Projector PSA, the author Steve Brooks has done an original interview with Brian Saunders, who is the CEO at BigTime. In the interview, the journalist asked the CEO about the reason for acquiring Projector PSA, along with information on their product road maps, and how they are planning to implement their business intelligence plan using the Microsoft Stack and Dynamics 365.
Additionally, it can be seen that Brooks has used an “Enterprise Times: What does this mean” section in both the January 2022 and August 2023 pieces, where he evaluated the positioning of BigTime in terms of the overall market by referring to certain competitors and private equity moves, such as those made by AKKR, TPG, TA Associates, and FinancialForce. Brooks has also referred to the Forrester Opportunity Snapshot in his August 2023 piece in order to analyze the market demand for the software as well as its potential position on the G2 Resource Management Grid.
I think that adding tags to improve that article which is what WP:ATD says to do is enough here. Alternatively - merge with Projector PSA MojjoDojjo (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Note that this user is the creator of the article that is being nominated for deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Interviews with the CEO are just about the textbook case of "not independent." M kuhner (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Agreeing with everyone. This article fails the fluffy magenta rule (GNG) and sources do not prove notability. I can't find any sources that prove this subject is notable as well. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: lacks significant coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; coverage is routine notices, trivial mentions, and / or rewarmed PR. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources presented above are unconvincing, press releases or user-generated content. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:55, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

2026 Croydon mayoral election

2026 Croydon mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to 2026 Croydon London Borough Council election because it is a part of the local elections taking place in the Croydon borough. This is consistent with the approach taken in 2022. Trimfrim20 (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    I support this. It's a pain having to go to two different pages for the same council. Arfur Towcrate (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
What about the other 2026 mayoral elections? Makerunbe (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I would argue the same principle as them - the Councillors and the Mayor are being elected to the same local authority? For numbers in Council chambers the Mayor effectively counts as a super Councillor. Having these in separate articles is confusing to those who are less involved. Trimfrim20 (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I would merge them ~2026-28725-62 (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose, different election with different candidates and the combined article would be very long Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    They’re all being elected to Croydon Council on the same day? They’re all members of the same chamber. The Mayoral information is crucial to the council election as it determines control of the council. Trimfrim20 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
    The mayor is the council leader, but they are not a councllor or "elected to Croydon Council". They are elected in a completely separate election which just takes place at the same time. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
    The 70 Councillors and the Executive Mayor are the Elected Members of the Council. The Mayor and the Councillors together form the "Full Council" per Croydon Council's constitution. The Mayor forms a cabinet from the Councillors available. The two are fundamentally linked. There is confusion from them being separated, such as Croydon being listed as a Labour NOC gain on 2026 London local elections. A list of Councillors elected with no information as to the administration subsequently formed is not helpful for readers establishing what the impact of the election actually was. I think the revised 2022 Croydon Council Election page is a good example of the way this should be laid out? Trimfrim20 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
These are two seperate elections that run in parralel, you wouldn't have a single page for the mayor of London election and the local election in Croydon, even though they sometimes happen on the same day. You will have a different set of results for each ward in the borough making a single article very long and potentially confusing ~2026-30146-02 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Right but these are for two different bodies. The Mayor of London is not a member of the London Assembly. The Mayor of Croydon *is* a member of Croydon Council. When you had a directly elected PM and Parliament in Israel in the 90s, these were sensibly combined into a single article (see: 1999 Israeli general election). Trimfrim20 (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These are different elections on the same day, as has been noted. MRSC (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
    The previously cited 1999 Israeli general election was also different ballots on the same day, but included in one article as inextricably linked? Trimfrim20 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Roadchef. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Killington Lake Services

Killington Lake Services (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)

Unremarkable service station fails general notability. References simply confirm it opens and it exists. Suggest redirecting to Roadchef 10mmsocket (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note previous AFD this was considered under as part of a bulk nomination (a very long time ago). Morwen (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't really want to point to WP:TMBS but motorway service areas are as the name suggests generally on motorways and serve a significant number of people, probably many more than most railway stations do. According to AI on Google Killington Lake serves around 1.5 million people a year which is a lot of people. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Why is this really any different from any any other service station page? Very few are well known but there are loads of pages on service stations. Can't just pick this random one and delete it because you feel like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-29915-44 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, actually, you can. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia and some are bad. If we couldn't tackle any of them until we tackled all of them, we'd never get anything done. WP:OTHER explains this. Do feel free to propose other non-notable service station articles for deletion! M kuhner (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep given the number of people they serve I would argue that they should be inherently notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Roadchef as suggested would be the usual approach. The only non-routine information here is the 1989 review of the food; I don't have access to the article, but if it's non-trivial then it could be added to the Roadchef article. (I do wonder whether we might do better to redirect to the motorway rather than the company that runs the services in cases like this, as we do with railway stations and the lines they're on, but the company articles usually say where the services are.) Adam Sampson (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect due to lack of notability. M kuhner (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Change of !vote from above. Per previous two comments above and ATD-R. The sources would satisfy content sourcing criteria. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:30, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. This does not preclude a merge, which had neither support nor opposition Star Mississippi 12:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

List of international presidential trips made by Mohamed al-Menfi

List of international presidential trips made by Mohamed al-Menfi (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)

Duplicate of Draft:List of international presidential trips made by Mohamed al-Menfi. Neither the draft nor this copy contain any sources. JTtheOG (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and Libya. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Additional content should be used to update the existing draft. It is not ready for mainspace as of yet. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • This article now has sources so that argument has fallen out of the window. @JTtheOG and D4iNa4: do you guys have any other reasoning as to why this must be deleted? jolielover♥talk 13:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
    Well that information should have been added to the original... JTtheOG (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Question. I'm tempted to say delete, but let's leave it as a question for now. Quite apart from the problem of sources noted earlier, what is the importance of this information? What broader implications does it have? For whom is it supposed to be notable? Athel cb (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, why can't this content just be merged into the politician's actual page? A standalone page isn't really warranted. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:02, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 12:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Priyadarshini Engineering College

Priyadarshini Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just some ROUTINE/TRIVIAL stuff out there. Didn't find anything to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 03:47, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to UBA Pro Basketball League#Teams. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 04:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Bengaluru Beast

Bengaluru Beast (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 inline citations are provided Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to UBA Pro Basketball League#Teams where they are mentioned as a WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Spartaz Humbug! 14:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Bryntwrog

Bryntwrog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence this hamlet meets WP:NPLACE and the article provides none. Its four sources are two mentions of a chapel named Bryntwrog (one on a genealogy site, one as a photo caption on a photo site) and two mentions of a holiday cottage for lease that is named Bryntwrog. WP:NPLACE says Settlements are not to be inferred from the presence of post offices, schools, churches, or other such facilities, as these often are found in isolation. I haven't been able to find anything better. Searches on Google Books turn up a lot of people named Bryntwrog but I haven't found any mentions of the locality. Happy to withdraw this if someone can find that it is an incorporated settlement. M kuhner (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related AfD discussions. M kuhner (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • As with many Welsh places there's a decent chance there'll be an Englishified spelling variant that will show up in the historical record. Trying to confirm that now. Btw, we don't really have the concept of an "incorporated settlement" here: every bit of land in Wales is part of a "community" - this is part of Bodffordd. Morwen (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
    Ok, it appears it's the place spelled as "Bryn-Twrog" here - this describes the settlement as a farm, which indeed wouldn't meet WP:NPLACE. Morwen (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • It is not an OS settlement (it shows up as "other features") so probably doesn't qualify as legally recognized per GEOLAND but as it has a chapel maybe content could be added about the chapel. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Slatina River (Nera)

Slatina River (Nera) (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)

Very minor river, 1-2 km long. No significant coverage, according to Openstreetmap it is near the village Șopotu Nou. Markussep Talk 07:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete — It's a tributary of the Bresnic River....could have redirected there but that page is itself redirected to Nera (Danube). And redirecting it to the tributaries section of Nera would be factually incorrect, so deletion is the only option. OR, if redirecting to a redirected page is plausible, which I don't think it is, still I am okay with that outcome. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 03:43, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Cerna (Danube). (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 04:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Slatina River (Cerna)

Slatina River (Cerna) (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)

Very minor river, 1-2 km long. No significant coverage, according to this map it is north of the town Băile Herculane. Markussep Talk 07:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: the source that User:Fram quoted when unPRODing this article is not about this stream, but about a river near Bor in Serbia. Markussep Talk 12:06, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Kima Webb

Kima Webb (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 unable to find enough coverage of this young footballer to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Agree, think this is a TOOSOON. He's only playing at his school. Porterjoh (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep - He appears in this article List of world association football records as the 'Youngest player in an international club competition match'. If this is correct then he's definitely notable. He's not just playing for his school. However, it does look like better sources are needed.Blackballnz (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 05:37, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Kawar family

Kawar 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)

LLM generated article, dubiously notable. Anything worth keeping could be merged into Karim Kawar. Smallangryplanet (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Auchē

Auchē (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)

Unable to find any evidence that this name refers to a village, was unable to find any plausible alternate transliterations here

Coordinates seem to come from this source . As far as I can tell no claim is made about the nature of the feature, and a nearby feature of the same name is labelled as a fort. Giulio 00:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete cannot find any village named anything similar in Myanmar's government MIMU pcodes system. Closest village in name is အော်ချိတ် (Aw Cheik) in Chipwi Township but that is far from this village and lacks a coordinate in the pcode system. Similar other village names include အူဂေါ့ (Ugawt/Augawt) and အူဂါ့ (Uga/Au Ga) but neither is that anywhere close to this village. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
delete per above.
And additionally can someone also verify these articles from this category- Category:Populated places in Kyaukpyu District as I feel some of them also fall in the same bucket as these. WinKyaw (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I'll hopefully get to them eventually, however there are likely over 1000 similar stubs and I'm currently gradually working through Category:Populated places in Kachin State.
The original source for most of these articles didn't seem to distinguish between villages and other features, so for cases where it is not blatantly obvious that there isn't a village at that location (e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aukan, Chipwi) I have to spend a fair bit of time to try to salvage the article if possible (e.g. Ah Mat Gyi Kone) or, as in this case, show that sourcing doesn't support that the subject of the article is a village. Giulio 17:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:30, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Bob FM

Bob FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is held by and doesn't have significant coverage and sources to back it up. OWaunTon (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete I don't understand what "held by" means in this nomination. But there is only one source. for a single statement in the article; otherwise, it is pure WP:OR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03, I meant to add "by one source" afterwards, but I forgot that. OWaunTon (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • DELETE fails basic WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was created (full disclosure, by me) at a very different time in Wikipedia's history. Sourcing requirements were very different in 2004 than they are now; for one thing, we didn't have nearly so well-defined rules about the distinction between WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing and simple verifiability, and it was actually considered to be more than sufficient that the information was verifiable on the websites of the radio stations themselves. But by contemporary standards, this absolutely doesn't have anything like the same coverage that the similar but more famous Jack FM brand had, so there's just no significant third-party sourcing out there to salvage it with. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Bob wasn't nearly as notable as Jack, though it actually predated Jack, and there is no obvious redirect target given the number of stations to have used this name. I suppose Adult hits would be a good redirect, but that article is in about as dire a shape as this one. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    • A disambiguation page is merited at this title when this page is deleted with stations strongly associated with the Bob name in North America and BOB fm (Hertfordshire) in England, which even without this page being deleted is not a primary topic for the name. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost whole article is based on WP:OR. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Andrea Longoni

Andrea Longoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the general notability guideline as it only uses one source which I presume is primary so it would not provide much information. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Doesn't meet GNG - not even close to our notability bars for biographies. That single source is not enough and besides, I couldn't find anything useful in additional searches. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:10, 25 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? 00:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Ducin. Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ogașu Odăilor

Ogașu Odăilor (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)

Very minor river, at most 2 km long. No significant coverage, the only mention I can find is in a description of the borders of a national park (name only, no description). Markussep Talk 08:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • To be more accurate, you couldn't find that mention, you thought the river didn't exist and proposed it for deletion on that basis, until I gave that link. Now you can find no other mentions, even though they exist (the same sentence reappears in different publications). Anyway, Redirect to Ducin as an WP:ATD. Fram (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    Well thanks for finding that, but I hope you agree that it is not notable. Or should we create articles or redirects for everything that is mentioned in that reference, like the peak Zmulta Mare (506 m)? Markussep Talk 08:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    Notability is a requirement for standalone articles, not for redirects. Fram (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ducin as an ATD-R. Just a small tributary, no need for a standalone page per WP:NOPAGE. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:34, 25 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? 00:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Padina Seacă River (Miniș)

Padina Seacă River (Miniș) (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)

Very minor river, about 1 km long (see this map, it's in the top part). No significant coverage. Markussep Talk 08:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Romania. Markussep Talk 08:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: A small tributary of a tributary (Mândrișag) of a tributary (Miniș) of a tributary (Nera) of Danube - does it deserve a standalone page? - absolutely not. Looks like a joke, but it isn't. The fact that someone created a separate page for this....is making me barmy. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:44, 25 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? 00:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Before the Fall (song)

Before the Fall (song) (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 could not find a reliable source for the claim about it's appearance on the Billboard Mainstream Rock charts, and the article says that the song received barely any radio play and poor charting. I don't believe this article is notable by Wikipedia's criteria for notability of music. VIV the star (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 00:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete — Doesn't have standalone notability. Didn't find it to be satisfying any of the criterions under WP:NSONG. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 03:34, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to John Hughes's unrealized projects#Oil and Vinegar. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 04:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oil and Vinegar (film)

Oil and Vinegar (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)

I propose redirecting to John Hughes's unrealized projects because there isn't enough sources available to establish notability for this unproduced film. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:45, 18 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? 00:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to John Hughes's unrealized projects#Oil and Vinegar as a WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was Draftify. Participants have unanimously agreed that this is WP:TOOSOON for mainspace. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 03:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Benz (film)

Benz (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)

I propose draftifying because the film does not pass notability with sources only on announcements, interview and unveiling. Pretty much ref bombing similar sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:34, 18 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? 00:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Draftify as a WP:ATD as it is WP:TOOSOON. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks