Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 30

Joseon Cybernation

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

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

Merge into Andrew Lee (entrepreneur). The only non-independent reliable sources in the article that actually mention this thing are the Daily Beast article and the Antigua Observer article--neither of which provide significant coverage, with the Daily Beast article primarily being about Lee. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and South Korea. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: as major contributor to article, depending on if you recognize Antigua and Barbuda's recognition of this entity per 2nd source and primary sources from both A&B and JC, this is either an article on a micronation or a political entity with limited recognition. Neither case has any established guidelines on notability, nor are there any guidelines on notability for either topic. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  But that doesn't mean there's no guidance at all; in such cases we default to WP:GNG, which is how F4U is viewing the topic.

  I'd need to do research into other pieces of the coverage to feel comfortable voting though. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP:CORPTRIV refers to passing mentions, whereas the Daily Beast article is comprehensive; the story from Antigua Observer doesn't appear to be a corporate press release either. The biggest issue with this page's history has been the insistence of exaggerating Joseon's supposed "statehood" (often by citing non-independent sources), but I don't believe this merits deletion. I also agree with TansoShoshen that this article is about a political entity, not necessarily a corporation.

If coverage of the subject is not sustained, this AfD can be revisited. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• A lot of the difficulty in my opinion that came with writing the article comes from how the 2 RS above sort of do write on the JC as if it were a corporation despite what is written in said RS saying otherwise. With companies, internal affairs are usually not discussed unless there is major financial impact. But as this isn't really a company, I've had to get plenty of primary sources to fill in the gaps. Nobody really talks about the actual political structure of JC outside of themselves, and writing about a political entity without the politics would sort of defeat the point of the article.

I will say the sources do need to be cleaned up. This is just a case Wikipedia has never seen before, because Wikipedia as an (ideally) neutral source of information has to walk a fine line between treating this like a real country similar to Abkhazia/South Ossetia/North Cyprus and treating this like a micronation with little information.

JC itself has leaned away from the crypto aspect a bit and does now present more as being by Korean diaspora for Korean diaspora, but that has yet to be reported in secondary sources. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm neutral on what to do with the page, but my reading of the situation is that it's certainly closer to being a corporation than a polity. It's not quite either, but it's still an organization and so org-related notability criteria still apply. I don't think the line is between being a real state with limited recognition like Kosovo vs a being micronation (it's just not anything close to the former), it's more a line between being one of those completely nonexistent "micronations" that only exist online or in a couple friends' imaginations vs being a proper micronation with some physical presence like Sealand. In this case, there is no physical presence, but there is the real world presence of the self-proclaimed leaders using their wealth to establish "diplomatic relations" with developing countries. Whether it's kept a standalone page or merged, we shouldn't treat this as a polity and we cannot use Template:Infobox country, it has to be Template:Infobox micronation with no flag or symbols.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue with Template:Infobox micronation is that it's for micronations. While JC at 1 point was a micronation, it certainly isn't now due to that aforementioned recognition from Antigua and Barbuda. That is part of the reason that we have this weird status that we have to try to explain, and I don't think any short term, whether it be: "micronation", "state with limited recognition", "self proclaimed monarchy", "self proclaimed cyberstate", or any variation of can adequately describe what JC is, even though all are realistic descriptions. I do prefer where it is now where status just links to an entire section on what it is. TansoShoshen (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

While JC at 1 point was a micronation, it certainly isn't now due to that aforementioned recognition from Antigua and Barbuda. That's not really how it works, it's still a micronation. It's not a state with limited recognition, its inclusion in List of states with limited recognition was discussed and rejected, it's even explicitly listed in the § Excluded section. Sealand also boasts de facto recognition from the UK and Germany, that doesn't make it not a micronation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a state, because it's exclusion from the list was primarily on the basis that JC is not a state because you need land to have a state. This was also why the Sovereign Military Order of Malta was removed despite previously being on the page. The difference between Sealand and JC is that the Antiguan and Barbudan recognition is de jure not de facto. I don't think in practice that any "denizen" would be able to self-identify as such upon customs. However, the government of Antigua and Barbuda has themselves came out and acknowledged recognition. Neither Sealand, the Dominion of Melchizedek, or any micronation has had a government go and back up their claims of recognition. TansoShoshen (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Nice4What and TansoShoshen Higgs In Space (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Higgs In Space: It seems you mean "oppose" deletion/merging, since you're citing both me and TansoShoshen? Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment I couldn't find a single piece of Korean-language coverage of Andrew Lee or his "cybernation" for that matter. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ca Oh, it's out there. They focus more on Yi Seok because that's who actually resides in Korea.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4f_KoGGaOM, however this isn't able to be cited because this is the Youtube upload.
• https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20230418066400371?input=1195m
• https://www.koreadaily.com/article/20230418210937738, this one mentions Andrew Lee.

As an aside, it's weird how "조선엠파이어" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this entity in Korean, the same way that "Joseon Cybernation" is in English, despite the entity itself not using either of those names. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep First of all, Just because its percieved that Joseon is only notable because of the Antiguan recognition isn't true. I found a source from a week ago discussing it and a source from early 2024, more than 6 months after the news of Antigua's recognition of Joseon. Also Keep per @TansoShoshen and @Nice4What shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Since you mention you found sources, could you provide links to them?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

May 2023 (1)May 2023 (2)December 2023 February 2024 April 2024 shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't think WP:DAILYEXPRESS is reliable. The "cryptoslate" and "einpresswire" sources are press releases (not independent, reliable, or secondary). The Daily Beast source is an interesting article about Andrew Lee, but the WP:DAILYBEAST isn't considered a good source for biographical information. The "daily tech news show" site is a wordpress blog. I don't think any of these can be considered reliable sources.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is not a biography, it ideally should not center around a specific person. TansoShoshen (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The Daily Beast article we were discussing would only be useful as a source for biographical information, though, which is why it's relevant that WP:DAILYBEAST says it's not generally reliable for that purpose. But the Wikipedia article is already centered around a specific person because the "Joseon Cybernation" is just a pet-project of a single person.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Andrew Lee (entrepreneur)#Later ventures. The Joseon Cybernation article is fairly thin and the most important details are already covered in that section. There's plenty of room on his article to expand it if any of details mentioned here need to be mentioned there.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:PAGESIZE as of right now, the Andrew Lee page is at 23,240 bytes. Adding 15,509 bytes to the Andrew Lee would make it extremely long. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's if we copy and paste every byte, including the AfD notice, infobox, "monarchs and prime ministers" table, etc. We don't need to do that, and the infobox needs to go even if the article is kept. The actual article is maybe one and a half thin paragraphs, and pretty much all the information found in those paragraphs is already covered more succinctly at Andrew Lee (entrepreneur). I'm honestly not even seeing any sentences that need to be merged, so this might as well be a redirect !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Why does the infobox need to go? shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Because consensus is that micronations cannot use Template:Infobox country and whatever this is, it's not a country.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Whatever "this is", it's not a micronation either. I see more justification to use Template:Infobox political division honestly. TansoShoshen (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The only thing distinguishing it from other micronations is that it's technically recognized by one country, it didn't suddenly become something else entirely the moment A&B agreed to acknowledge it in exchange for a $1.5M donation from Lee. But you were right to suggest this is a case Wikipedia hasn't really seen before; Wikipedia's article about micronations includes the word "unrecognized" in its definition and Joseon is technically not unrecognized. The problem is that the current version leans towards treating it as a state, when a much better solution would be to call it a "partially-recognized micronation." If it's kept a standalone page, we can still use Template:Infobox political division (only because there's no way to remove the word "Unrecognized" from Template:Infobox micronation), but we should also still treat it as a micronation and follow the consensus at Wikipedia:Infobox micronation regarding what parameters should be included or excluded (e.g. no flags, arms, etc).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the purported recognition, what would be useful to inform our treatment is academic sources discussing its meaning and implications. In various Joseon Cybernation discussions that have been had over the years, sources tend to be primary documents and a few Antiguan news pieces. CMD (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 - I'm not so sure that academic sources are out there for this topic, but they would be a lot more helpful than the sources we've had to work with so far.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thing is, the term "micronation" is seemingly always defined as not having recognition from any sovereign state at all:

• MicroWiki: "self-proclaimed sovereign state without international recognition that is treated differently to a state with limited recognition. There is no widely accepted consensus on the definition of a micronation within the field of micropatriology."
• Britannica: "entity that claims to be an independent state but whose sovereignty is not recognized by the international community. Micronations are distinct from microstates, such as Liechtenstein or Vatican City, whose sovereignty over extremely small territories and populations is internationally recognized."
• Dictionary.com: "an entity, typically existing only on the internet or within the private property of its members, that lays claim to sovereign status as an independent nation, but which is unrecognized by real nations"

TansoShoshen (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the Antigua Observer didn't just write a single article about JC, but 4 in total as of writing this:

• Joseon cybernation will help build up the ‘common Antiguan citizen’
• Antigua & Barbuda establishes relations with Joseon Cybernation
• The digital dynasty: Joseon PM speaks about benefits to country
• ‘Experimenting with all forms of our sovereignty’: Hurst likens Joseon deal to CIP

TansoShoshen (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Multiple articles from the same publication don't add to notability, especially not when most of them are from the same author. These articles also wouldn't be that useful for further expanding either this article or the Lee article as they're heavy on quotes & fluff but light on novel information not already found in the pages being discussed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:59, 5 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.

Embarrassing Times

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

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

No indication of notability as per WP:NALBUM. JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. JTtheOG (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added a review from Yellow Green Red, plus some contextual mentions from other outlets. ElektraFlowers (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

We also have the notice about the re-release from White Crate:https://whitecrate.org/embarrassing-times-by-tony-molina/

and the album's placement on a monthly recommendation list: https://www.woodyjagger.com/2023/11/15-recomendables-novedades.html

Most/all of the press mentions revolve around the 2023 reissue. ElektraFlowers (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. Two out of three of these are unfortunately WP:BLOGs, while the White Crate pseudo-review is three sentences long. JTtheOG (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM and lacks independent coverage. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 20:39, 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.

Dot's Pretzels

Dot's Pretzels (edit | talk | history | 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 The Hershey Company because it fails WP:NPRODUCT Bryce M (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and North Dakota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of the Hershey Company brands#Salty snacks Extended the description there, but this is only slightly different than the 2024 version of the article outside the plant closure. Nathannah • 📮 01:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom some useful content here

Czarking0 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect since the very short article is about a product. FlammablePizza (talk) 03:37, 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.

Hideto Tomabechi

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

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

Delete

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP.

The article relies extensively on primary sources, self-published material, affiliated organizations, interviews, and promotional content. There appears to be insufficient significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to establish encyclopedic notability.

The article also contains extensive peacock wording, résumé-style career listings, synthesis, and extraordinary claims regarding psychology, military advisory roles, cognitive warfare, brainwashing, hypnosis, and related subjects that are either weakly sourced or not supported by high-quality independent references.

Multiple sections raise concerns under:

• WP:BLP – controversial and extraordinary claims about a living person are weakly sourced or rely on affiliated/self-published material.

• WP:NPOV – the article presents highly favorable and promotional descriptions as factual without sufficient balance or attribution.

• WP:NOTPROMOTION – the article reads largely as a résumé, publicity profile, or promotional biography rather than an encyclopedic entry.

• WP:PEACOCK – contains subjective or inflated language and unsupported prestige-oriented descriptions.

• WP:OR – several analytical and scientific claims appear to synthesize interpretations or present the subject’s views as established fact.

• WP:V – many claims are difficult to verify through reliable independent secondary sources.

• WP:RS – substantial reliance on primary, affiliated, self-published, interview-based, or otherwise weak sourcing.

The current state of the article would require fundamental reconstruction rather than routine cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toma-ai-hanza (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Artificial intelligence, and Japan. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Pinging @Theroadislong as the AfC reviewer and @Tomabechi Magyarország as the main creator of the article. Also note that WP:NPOV is generally not a good reason to delete an article, as it is a fixable issue. Same for promotional, unless it passes G11 (unambiguous and exclusively advertising and promotion).

𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Clearly easily passes WP:GNG all other issues can be addressed by editing. Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The claim that the "article also contains extensive peacock wording, résumé-style career listings, synthesis, and extraordinary claims regarding psychology, military advisory roles,..." is seriously exaggerated, and I don't see much evidence the other criticisms. Athel cb (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT at multiple levels. I confess to being very surprised by the votes of both Theroadislong and Athel cb. The version they voted on had masses of unsourced claims, and one of the worst examples of peacock I have ever seen, as the nom stated. For instance, being involved in a funded project is not notable, unless it is leading on one with funding of > $50M or so. Refbombing all over the place with self-published research very little of which has been peer reviewed. Writing a section on "Tomabechi algorithms" when the two of his so-called high impact papers have 67 and 6 cites is highly inappropriate. While it could be argued that he has enough mentions, plus WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT is not a common AfD arguement, I will invoke WP:IAR. So much of the material I have some expertise in (science) was dubious that I do question the accuracy of other claims. I have remove vast amounts of bloat, unsourced material etc. More is probably needed, plus a careful check to see if there is really a pass of WP:42 here; no way is there a pass of WP:NPROF.Ldm1954 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  N.B., prior to my removals G11 was probably appropriate. It may still be as the accuracy of claims needs checking. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Comment, the current version after I have removed fluff is comparable to the version accepted by @Theroadislong in 2020. I will comment that the 2020 version had multiple duplicate sources, refbombing, self-published sources (reports) and overstatements (e.g. there is no evidence that he has ever held any tenure-track position at a US university). That should have been caught at WP:NPP back then. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:FloblinTheGoblin

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20200721224000/https://www.sigef2019.com/portfolio-item/speaker-dr-hideto-tomabechi/	It appears to be an independent source, seeing as it is a global forum on innovation and ethics. I doubt anyone affiliated with him wrote it.		It has a couple decent paragraphs, probably (?) enough.	✔ Yes
https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/directory/bios/tomabechi-hideto.html	Not independent as a college's bio of an alumnus.			✘ No
https://doi.org/10.3115%2F981344.981385	A paper written by him.		Does not describe him at any sort of length as a paper from him about his field.	✘ No
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnlp1994/2/2/2_2_23/_article/-char/ja/	See previous on all counts.			✘ No
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hideto-Tomabechi	~ I do not know who writes these bios, he may have written it himself.		Only details his work experience and the papers he's written as a simple research profile.	✘ No
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2805206	See source #3 again on both counts.			✘ No
https://nrid.nii.ac.jp/nrid/1000070253226/	~ Again, I don't know who created this bio.		Goes into even less depth than the other bio.	✘ No
https://www.justsystems.com/jp/news/95l/news/j9507071.html	He was the head of JustSystems.		~ Doesn't appear to be, based on the amount that is written on the page, but I do not speak Japanese.	✘ No
https://crl.co.jp/	See previous on both counts, but replace JustSystems with CRL.		~	✘ No
https://c4i.gmu.edu/cyber-resilience-transparency-and-monotonicity-under-zero-trust/	~ Once again, no clue as to who wrote the bio. Could be him, or someone unconnected.		Brief one paragraph bio.	✘ No
https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000013.000006328.html	~ This is a press release company, so it is likely written by him or someone related, but I cannot be sure because of the language barrier.	~ If it was written by him, then probably, otherwise who knows.	~ Again, based on the amount visible on the page, probably not.	~ Maybe
https://resiliencejapan.jp/	He was chairman of the company.		~ See previous answer for significance.	✘ No
https://jfpc.site/	~ No specific section of the site is cited, also, again, I can't read it.		~	~ Maybe
https://sjsu.edu/faculty/y.shimazu/epilogueDrT.html	It is an interview with him.		Lots of detailed information.	✘ No
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-4446.12705	Article published by independent researcher.		~ I can't access the article, although it's worth noting he is not mentioned at all in the abstract.	~ Maybe
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-4446.12705	Another interview, which is unreliable. There is a short pre-interview bio but that is not significant on it's own.	~ I'm not sure if this is a reliable news site or not.	Again, lots of available info.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

I'm not quite finished with the table, so bear with me, but I must say it's not looking good for passing WP:GNG. If anyone has any info to add or happens to speak Japanese, let me know if I got anything wrong. Once I finish the table I'll give my vote. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)(edit conflict)

Based on my table, as far as sources cited in the en-wiki version go, I would say non notable, however I'll have to checkout this jp-wiki article first.

• Keep passes WP:GNG (look at sources on the Japanese article) and likely passes WP:NAUTHOR as well. Deletion is not cleanup. DCsansei (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  If there are reliable sources then please add them if they satisfy WP:42, and (for instance) are not his self-published reports, unrefereed papers etc. The prior english version did not have reliable source. In addition, there is no evidence of any books so the claim of a pass of WP:NAUTHOR (which relies upon reviewed books) does not follow policy. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Could you link these sources? Based on my table above I would say the en-wiki sources don't confer notability, and we'll need to see the sources you're talking about to add them to the article. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 22:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Notability is based on sources available, not what's in the article. There's also no indication that a WP:BEFORE search was conducted in Japanese. As to linking the sources, I noted that I am looking at the Japanese article 苫米地英人. You'll note an extensive bibliography there. All we need is one book to get a couple credible reviews to meet WP:NAUTHOR (which is why I said likely, I did not search each book individually for reviews - that would be the job of the nominator per BEFORE). DCsansei (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, well, we'll still need to find a couple specific reliable sources to show notability. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  But yes, nom should've done it so now someone else'll have to. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  This is very, very odd. According to GoodReads he has 186 books(!). Of these 17 were published in 2015, 22 in 2014; I did not count further. A search for book reviews finds nothing. The article when the original nomination was made has no books listed, neither does the 2020 AfC version. Did he actually write all those books himself, for instance 22 in 2014 while he was (claims) leading research projects in Japan, consulting for the JDF, liasing with Carnegie-Mellon? Ldm1954 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm going to continue to withhold my !vote until someone goes it to the jpwiki article and finds some specific decent sources. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Definitely very odd all around. But that doesn't make him non-notable. The fact that an English search doesn't bring anything up isn't really relevant since I'm pointing out that there are many sources on Japanese Wikipedia which have not been evaluated. To conclude he is not notable, someone needs to evaluate those and do a Japanese-language BEFORE to see if any of his 168 books have multiple reviews (I am not volunteering for this). But given the fact that some of them were printed by major publishers, I think it's pretty likely which is why I said in my vote that he likely passes WP:NAUTHOR. DCsansei (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Additional source-verification concerns remain even after recent trimming of the article:

  Several remaining claims still appear unsupported or overstated:

  • “Established the Altered Consciousness Research Center” – the cited sources do not appear to verify that such a university research center was established.
  • “VP R&D, Justsystem” – the cited sources do not appear to verify this specific executive title.
  • “Adjunct fellow and professor at CyLab” – the source appears to support an affiliated/fellow relationship, but not a professorship.
  • “Independent consultant to the Japan Self-Defense Forces” – the sourcing appears to rely on biographical self-description rather than independent verification.
  • “Research professor at National Chengchi University” – no reliable source appears to verify this title.
  • “Visiting professor at Waseda University Nano & Life Research Center” – appears to rely on affiliated or self-published news rather than an official Waseda University source.

  The cited sources appear to support involvement in deprogramming activities related to Aum Shinrikyo members following the Tokyo subway sarin attack. However, the additional claims regarding “brainwashing”, “influenced states of consciousness”, being “one of Aum's greatest enemies”, and an assassination attempt do not appear to be clearly verified by the cited sources.

  These examples reinforce that the issue is not merely tone, but verifiability and source quality for core biographical claims. Toma-ai-hanza (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  AfD is not for cleanup. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Theroadislong, when AfD reveals more unsourced claims the case for notability become weaker, and that for delete stronger, as stated by Toma-ai-hanza. For reference I just deleted those identified by Toma-ai-hanza above after checking them. I suspect there still remain significant issues. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  And there was more. For instance the page called him a "Research Scientist" when in fact he was doing his PhD at CMU. That type of excess is not acceptable. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Additional source-verification concerns remain after reviewing the currently cited sources.

  The article currently provides limited evidence of recognition through independent peer-reviewed academic literature in cognitive science. I have also been unable to locate reliable sourcing verifying several core academic and biographical claims.

  • The currently cited sources do not appear to verify enrollment at the University of Massachusetts Amherst or receipt of a bachelor's degree from Sophia University.
  • The Carnegie Mellon CyLab fellow biography appears to be the primary source for claims regarding Yale-related affiliations, including the Fulbright research position and involvement with Yale AI/Cognitive Science programs.
  • Tokushima University sources appear to support an assistant professorship rather than a full professorship.
  • Existing JustSystems-related sources appear inconsistent regarding executive titles and responsibilities. The cited material appears to support a role as director of the JustSystem Basic Research Institute, but not necessarily several of the broader executive and research claims currently or previously stated in the article.
  • Claims regarding hypnosis, altered consciousness, homeostasis, cyberspace-related brain research, and human-machine interface development do not appear to be clearly supported by the cited JustSystems material.
  • The “brainwashing” section appears to rely heavily on a translated interview hosted on an individual academic webpage rather than strong independent secondary sourcing.

  These issues further reinforce concerns regarding verifiability, source quality, and reliance on self-descriptive or affiliated material for major biographical and scientific claims Toma-ai-hanza (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  These are all good arguments to improve the article. DCsansei (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  They are good reasons to delete the article. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP DCsansei (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Search “苫米地英人” on the Japanese Web
  • Yahoo Japan: Search  · News
  • Google Japan: Search  · News  · Books
• Draftify with an Alfred plea. Almost definitely notable, but until someone checks the japan sources for notability, the argument is basically WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I would myself, to be clear, and I don't mean to force the job on someone else, but obviously there's the language gap. Thank you to whatever editor does end up digging through that pile, whenever they get around to it. I also don't see any indication of passing WP:NAUTHOR. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: There are lots of fanciful sources about this person , I can't seem to bring up an h-factor for the science portion of his career. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see enough sourcing for GNG, the chart above also explains it. Lots of fanciful coverage about this person, not much else. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting list for the following topic: Academics and educators. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:20, 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.

Asaduzzaman Fuaad

Asaduzzaman Fuaad (edit | talk | history | 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 politician. The subject has never won an election. Does not hold any elected office. The sources do not demonstrate passing WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The sources are just routine coverage mostly around the time of the general election. No independent significant reliable coverage. Fails WP:NPOL. Rht bd (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom - Not WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Do not think merging to Amar Bangladesh Party is a viable AtD. BleachPuffin (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Being the general secretary of a political party is not an automatic pass for WP:NPOL. It is not an elected position and does not pass WP:GNG itself. Tuesden (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the party's article. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 6 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.

Nigel Mitchell

Nigel Mitchell (edit | talk | history | 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 established notability for inclusion; only one IMDb (unreliable source); written like a resume. Maintainance templates have been up since 2024. TurquoiseGoose (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and England. TurquoiseGoose (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: previous AfD is from 2006 and the lack of sources was not addressed then nor has it been fixed since, 20 years later. TurquoiseGoose (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a resume, not notable. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable in 2006, and not notable in 2026. Bearian (talk) 04:39, 6 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.

Jean José Razafimandimby

Jean José Razafimandimby (edit | talk | history | 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 Jean José Razafimaninory because this is the correct name of the football player while for Jean José Razafimandimby there are now references cf the content of the external links now included in this article Robby (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Madagascar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: on the one hand, it would appear the nominator is actually proposing a page move–RM hasn't been merged into AfD (yet) as far as I know, and the proposed target–Jean José Razafimaninory–does not currently exist. But on the other hand, this actually might be ripe for a traditional deletion discussion rather than an RM (or an uncontroversial unilateral move): it has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since September and lacking significant coverage–considered even more of a requisite for sports biographies than in other topic areas due to past issues–since July. No formal opinion on that, however. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed RM might be the best for this article, unfortunately I'm not that much aware of all the optin on en.wikipedia. So I think after the end of this discussion moving the page mighjt be a good solution. Moreover i think with the additional sources in the external links of the article might allow to keep the article. Robby (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - no valid deletion rationale, as the proposed merge target doesn't actually exist... GiantSnowman 12:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, wrong venue. Go to WP:RM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural close which is basically 'keep' - as others have said, RM would be a better venue for this type of discussion, as we're not proposing a merge, deletion or redirect here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 5 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.

Black Weblog Awards

Black Weblog Awards (edit | talk | history | 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 cannot find significant, in depth coverage of this short-lived award. The only coverage that isn't from the nominated or winning blogs or their partners is this passing mention. I cannot identify a merger target or other ATD. Star Mississippi 22:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Internet. Star Mississippi 22:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Interesting concept but sadly not notable. Tumblr is dead, after all. Maybe they should have rebranded as Black Wetiktok Awards. Not WP:GNG, Delete. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2015. Even the first nomination from 2006, under the lower standards of that era, ended in deletion; that's not an insurmountable obstacle if coverage does emerge in the intervening period, but it doesn't bode well otherwise. (No formal opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete regarding my request here. Just not many sources at all: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Please_nominate_Black_Weblog_Awards_for_deletion_3 ~2026-31555-75 (talk) 12:53, 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.

Copernicus Society of America

Copernicus Society of America (edit | talk | history | 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 does not appear to be a notable organisation. None of the four sources given mention the CSA at all; three are just about Copernicus himself, and the one identified as the "official website" is of an unrelated organisation in Germany. I have struggled to find anything about them beyond that they finance the Michener-Copernicus Fellowship and make some other small grants; potentially this page could be redirected to the Fellowship page, or to the article on Edward Piszek (the founder). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The Copernicus Society of America is a historical US-based non-profit organization but it has limited digital presence.🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  @The BO77! We do need to see evidence of notability, not just that it exists (which I don't think anyone disputes). What sources on it did you use when writing the article? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. In response to the above point by @The BO77!: I took a look through the archives of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times to see if there were reliable print sources, which returned no significant coverage. RaisedArizona (talk) 18:12, 5 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.

Byron Q

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

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

This article is pretty aged, but I don't believe it meets WP:NFILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Many citations need their archived links updated, but they all appear to be mentions or interviews. Their film Bang Bang may have just enough to meet notability, but I don't think there is enough for a BLP yet. If this had more current citations, I would say draftify. But searching around, it doesn't look like the subject is covered significantly in independent and reliable sources. Filmforme (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related AfD discussions. Filmforme (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - the sources are mostly blogs and crowdfunding. Bearian (talk) 04:37, 6 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.

Toma Group

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

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

Most of the cited sources are just passing mentions of the company name. Others are routine coverage of their getting fined by department of environment. No indepth significant coverage to demonstrate clear notability. Fails WP:ORG Rht bd (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, against WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, after User talk:Vinegarymass911's edits. I think the construction death and court cases make it notable. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep-The subject of the article is notable based on its receiving continued coverage over two decades in multiple independent sources, many of which are in-depth, covering corruption, concerns over safety in its construction sites, and large contracts. Since the nomination, I have expanded and reorganized the article. The coverage spans two decades and discusses the company itself rather than merely mentioning it in passing. In particular, I would mention the following sources, 1, 2, 3, and 4. P.S. I created the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Now notable following @User talk:Vinegarymass911's edits. Now meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Per WP:HEY following the recent developments in the article.Thilsebatti (talk) 02:59, 6 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.

World Urban Forum 3

World Urban Forum 3 (edit | talk | history | 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 World Urban Forum 3 to World Urban Forum because there seems to be no purpose in maintaining such a scanty, stand-alone article when there are no independent reliable source. None of the other World Urban Forums seem to have stand-alone articles either. Peaceray (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. Agree with nominator's reasons. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 22:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Christopher Ferry

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

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

American addiction recovery advocate (BLP). The article is mostly based on the subject's own website, and on a few magazine features of a kind that do not represent substantial coverage under WP:BASIC. The New York Times article is about a single trivial event, and does not confer notability per WP:BLP1E: this was agreed when this article was nominated for deletion previously. I cannot see that anything has changed about the subject's notability since the last discussion, only that he has engaged in some further self-promotion through magazine features and his website since then. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: The viral prank might be notable, the two guys that paid for the billboard are not. There seems to be enough coverage about it. This person doesn't seem to have much for sigcov otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Addiction recovery advocacy is admirable, and one would hope more time would be devoted to it than editing their Wikipedia page. Perhaps that would actually lead to work that was WP:GNG. Delete due to non-notability. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as there is none of the in-depth coverage of the individual in reliable and verifiable sources that would be needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Maybe someone can reintroduce the article again at a much later date if he gets covered by more sources. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as there is a complete lack of in depth coverage.RozJosh (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - one of many recovery advocates, and the prank was a WP:BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 04:36, 6 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.

Product naming convention

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

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

Beneath the suffocating blanket of LLM bullet-point hell, this article is just a WP:DICTDEF. Of the three sources cited, one is unrelated to the topic, one is a dead link, and one is a blog post. A quick Google Scholar search uncovers several articles on naming conventions for particular items (e.g., drugs and biologics), but nothing on "products" in general, suggesting the topic is not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Business-related AfD discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• clear sloparticle, Delete. Possibly even speedy delete. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Clear LLM and on a topic not worth the effort to salvage. M kuhner (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to product naming Brand#Global brand variables The article was human generated up until this February 2025 edit which introduced the LLM content, but it wasn't a proper article before that point either and a plausible redirect to the actual concept of product naming is better in this case. Nathannah • 📮 02:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

WeirdNAnnoyed's targeted redirect is more what I was looking for, so changed my rationale. Nathannah • 📮 20:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect works. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  I want to agree, but I stand by my original call for deletion because product naming is a very weak, very vague single-source article. I also think "product naming convention" is a rather unlikely search term, but I don't have any evidence for that. If people are really set on a redirect, a better target would be Brand#Global brand variables which has much more content. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Biting on this: Brand naming and product naming aren't actually one thing. They can be, but a corn chip is a product name, not a brand name, but some marketing person had to decide that this thing would be called a "corn chip." Or "shredded wheat." Or a "roller coaster." Hyperbolick (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Original author here, I understand the LLM hits as I have had to pull my own websites down. For the purposes of this article it was meant (and maybe failed at) discussing the length, and predictable nature of a product name. I have no concerns with deleting. It has not gathered any real attention. Maybe a better person could summarize the whole article as one sentence on a parent topic. Lathama (talk) 21:16, 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.

Kezias Kazuba Mwale

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

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

Zambian radio engineer (BLP). Only two of the sources actually appear to exist, and these are both on the website of the subject's employer (the African Telecommunications Union). The other sources all return 404 errors, and on spot-checking these sources in the Wayback Machine I find that they already have 404 errors in the month that they were allegedly retrieved, which may suggest that these webpages never existed in the first place (?). I also see no evidence here that the subject meets WP:BASIC.

The article is also written like a WP:RESUME, and looks like it is meant to support the subject's candidacy for secretary-general of the ATU in their July election, which would be WP:PROMOTION. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Zambia-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Songratulations! This is the first AfD in a new delsort!. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Cyprus and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G15. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• G15 delete per nom, I added the tag for the egregious fake sources. Jumpytoo Talk 04:35, 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.

Easter in Nigeria

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

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

Currently there is a lot of unsupported material on the page that is not supported by references. If that was removed it would be a stub which simply stated that Easter is a festival celebrated by millions of Christians in Nigeria. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Nigeria. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The topic appears by every indication to be notable, but the AI issue worries me. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I also adovated to keep the Easter in Cyprus article for the same reasons--religious traditions vary from country to country and I think it's important to have records of each as a way of documenting culture around the world. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  There is a requirement to properly reference every claim made in a page and everything left uncited can be removed. Maybe there is something that could we written on the topic using reliable sources, I don't know. But this isn't it. JMWt (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, written like a high school assignment. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete as it needs a lot of work. While a brief skim of this (weak) source doesn't seem to show much difference re: Easter celebrations compared to general Easter practices (beyond a few cultural dishes), I don't know enough about the subject matter to opine whether it meets WP:GNG. A quick search of Google Scholar brings up several articles about the impact of festivals-in-general as a catalyst for peace, and Christians do make up approximately half of Nigerians, but the current state of the article is unacceptable. I would fix it but I don't know much about the region, sources are pretty scarce, and I try to stay away from religious topics as I had enough of that in school. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak Delete This article has the potential to be very impactful and will continue to be relevant as the strong human capital from Nigeria continues other continents. However, the article is not up to my understanding of what the standards are for Wikipedia articles. It lacks in detail, substance, and sourcing, so improvements must be made. AadamentAardvark (talk) 11:01, 12 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.

Sohagpur SK Pilot Model High School

Sohagpur SK Pilot Model High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NORG (WP:NSCHOOL)... Could not find any reliable source with significant coverage either. The first source cited is obviously paid reporting, and the second one is just a passing mention. — Raihanur (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit: I support the redirect proposed below... — Raihanur (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Additional searches didn't find any sources containing SIGCOV--Nq Wisit (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Belkuchi Upazila#Education, where it's mentioned, as an ATD-R. Didn't find anything useful in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:08, 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.

Kleinschönau

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

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

I don't find any mention of this page name in these three redirect names. It was deleted once and recreated again. Please share your suggestions. GreenRedFlag (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related AfD discussions. GreenRedFlag (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I PRODed the article, though the PROD was contested with the argument that Kleinschönau was mentioned on all three pages. However, a search for "Klein" shows no results. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I contested the PROD, although I oversimplified the case (editing on phone, not easy to check): I had found the three distinct places by searching for "Kleinschonau", but two were listed under their districts, the third appeared in the article on the railway station but not on the village. I have improved the dab page, and added the pre-1945 name to the article on the Polish village (which was also the site of a concentration camp). PamD 21:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - it's clear that there are multiple subjects that can be disambiguated. Though maybe consider moving it to Kleinschönau (disambiguation) to allow Kleinschönau to be redirected to Sieniawka, Zgorzelec County, as that seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Fortek67 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• All three villages are verifiable gazetteer entries and similarly plausible avenues of navigation for the average English reader encountering it. This is a pretty mundane list supported by WP:D and WP:5P1. (Speedy keep) --Joy (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Doczilla please help us understand what you need to declare consensus. AFAICT after this May 23 edit there is no longer any issue, and the two delete !votes before that are superseded. --Joy (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

An edit does make a difference, yes. While it changes how prior discussion might be weighted, though, it does not mean they must be ignored. A "keep" close at this point could easily have invited DRV. There is no hurry. See what others think. Especially helpful would be to learn whether the nominator or delete !voter agree with you now. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's ping the remaining one then ;) @Significa liberdade please see above. --Joy (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: the nominator has since been blocked indefinitely as an undisclosed paid editor. No opinion on the dab page. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 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.

Kimberly Idoko

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

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

American neurologist (BLP). The sources are articles by the subject, passing mentions or quotations of the subject in the press, or routine listings on websites to which she has contributed or documenting her medical certification: none of this satisfies WP:BASIC. There is also some pre-release coverage of her 2026 book (her first), but such pre-release coverage does not establish that this book is notable as required for WP:AUTHOR. I see no particular reason to think that she meets WP:ACADEMIC either. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. Article was largely written by User:Phoenixskies123 who stated in this edit summary that they are a relative of the subject, which raises serious WP:COI concerns. MidnightMayhem (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Medicine, California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - absolutely fails WP:GNG and all sources are either WP:PASSING or self-published. No demonstration of notability other than being willing to give quotes for general health articles online, which is not sufficient. Also, the WP:COI concerns that MidnightMayhem pointed out make this all the more a reason for deletion. Yojo98 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Promotional and not notable. Might become notable soon under WP:NAUTHOR after her book gets published. 🄻🄰 15:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I see a potential pass of NACADEMIC ("Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.") from her expert quotations in the media, but I'm not sure, so I won't be casting a vote either way.

BhamBoi (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Lots of WP:PASSING. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete - the best and most reliable reporting seems to be all about her upcoming book. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 6 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.

Shyampur Siddheswari Mahavidyalaya

Shyampur Siddheswari Mahavidyalaya (edit | talk | history | 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) 18:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Can’t find any sources. GrabUp - Talk 07:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, I found no suitable redirect target, as it is not mentioned. Babin Mew (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:NSCHOOL. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:23, 4 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.

Basia Lyjak

Basia Lyjak (edit | talk | history | 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 was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV; I added a handful of local, one-sentence mentions to the article already. Other mentions are even barer e.g. No plausible redirect target. Suriname0 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Suriname0 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete - there are other sources under her stage name of "Barbie Lee Jack" ("Lee Jack" is apparently the phonetic spelling of her name in English). I only found more local news from Toronto, and a jacket cover for a band that she collaborated with. She appears to be locally famous. Ping me if you find more. Bearian (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: not enough valid secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.--TitCrisse (t•c) 12:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC).
• Delete There is a lot of content on the article but the references are bare with only 3. Unless someone can find more sources for this page, I would say it fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:25, 4 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.

Robert H. Pritchett III

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

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

American marine salvage specialist (BLP). None of the sources are significant coverage concentrating on the subject of the article in the way that would be required to satisfy WP:BASIC: rather, we have a few articles on local or specialist news sites that report on his company's salvage operations, a book co-written by the subject, and some legal documents.

The article is also written like a WP:RESUME, and may be intended for the purpose of WP:PROMOTION. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Archaeology, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: zero reliable, independent, and secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 6 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.

Lingokids

Lingokids (edit | talk | history | 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:SIRS. All of the sources used here are routine coverage of funding and partnership. Rht bd (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Software, and Spain. Rht bd (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is clearly established. The article cites coverage from TechCrunch, EdSurge, Business Wire, GlobeNewswire, Kidscreen, and Bullhound Capital documenting $186M in funding across multiple rounds over 11 years. Beyond funding coverage, Lingokids has been named one of TIME Magazine's World's Top EdTech Companies (2024) based on a Statista analysis of over 7,000 companies, won the Kidscreen Best Original Learning App award two consecutive years (2022–2023), won the EdTech Breakthrough Language Learning App of the Year (2023), and maintains active partnerships with NASA, BBC Earth, Oxford University Press and UNICEF. The platform serves over 200 million families across 190 countries. This goes well beyond routine funding coverage. AdriSoft (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AdriSoft (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• Comment Those are non-notable awards, being named "one of ...." in a small subsection (e.g. best startup) is insufficient for satisfying notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep : The article is far from being decent, however there are sources for establishing notability. This also appears to be good enough. Chronos.Zx (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment This provides a high-level overview of the product in about 13 sentences, referencing a number of studies reporting that the app is good for children's learning. But, it contains zero information about the company, the topic we are examining for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment : The article has been significantly expanded with more sources since it was nominated for deletion. Rht bd (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the newly added sources sufficient to establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Since the original nomination, the article has been updated with independent editorial sources including El País (byline Rosa Jiménez Cano), Tech.eu (byline Dan Taylor), Cinco Días (byline Marimar Jiménez), TechCrunch, Expansión México and UNICEF. These are not funding announcements - they are independent profiles and analyses of the company published across multiple years. AdriSoft (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I've edited the article - there was a tendency to highlight the publisher of an article as a measure of notability. But problems establishing notability remain. 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. There are 21 sources in the article, here's a breakdown on why they fail NCORP:

• PR and Announcements - fails ORGIND: NASA 2026 PR, 2018 Award by EnlightED, Unicef partnership announcement, Moonbug announcement, Animaj announcement, Kidscreen Awards, Breakthrough Award, TIME recognition, Good Housekeeping award, NPPA award.
• Funding announcements - no "independent content": Techcrunch 20 June 2017, EdSurge 20 June 2017, El País 21 June 2017 and El Español 21 June 2017 all report on the $4m round in June 2017, all report the exact same stats with quotes from the CEO, etc, no independent content, some others such as Yahoo on 21 June 2017 and FINSMES the same, fails ORGIND. Same problem with the 2018 $6m round plus $1.3m grant reported in 2 October 2018, and EU Startups 2 October 2018. Then the 2021 $40m announcement in TechEU, the day after it was announced in as reported in Venturebeat. Then the 2025 $120m round in Kidscreen, regurtitated from this official announcement. None of those sources contain "independent content" as defined in ORGIND, do not go towards establishing notability.
• Advertorials, Profiles, "awards", Interviews, etc - all rely entirely on company or execs, no "independent content": tech.eu company profile simply summarises the company's position, its an advertorial, fails ORGIND. Inclusion in "Top 100" such as this article is specifically mentioned (CORPTRIV) as the type of coverage that does not meet the "significant coverage" requirement. Finally, an interview with the CEO without any independent content fails ORGIND.

None of the sources meet NCORP criteria. If anyone believes there are sources that do, don't just stick up a link. You need to point to the particular page/paragraph/section/whatever that contains in-depth independent content about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 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.

Hinduism in Nagaland

Hinduism in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | 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 shows no evidence of notability for the topic and is solely WP:OR. It is clear there are Hindus in Nagaland, but this article does not talk much about them and the sources do not make any mention of the topic as a whole. The history section is all original research, as it discusses the Kachari people, who are currently Hindus, but weren't during the events described, having undergone Sanskritisation during the 19th century. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Nagaland. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather than deletion, I would suggest an WP:ATD approach. The topic itself—Hindu minorities in Nagaland—is covered in broader demographic and regional studies, so the content may be better handled through improvement or restructuring. Weichan123 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Weichan123 that this article can be written with "broader demographic and regional studies" but are there any? Nevertheless, there has been constant editing on this article from the right-wing perspective without reliable sources or misinterpreting the sources to claim a stronger Hindu narrative. I tried to rectify it once and changed it into the "legend" section. I agree with @Boynamedsue that the history section is Wikipedia:OR which "discusses the Kachari people, who are currently Hindus, but weren't during the events described." They are also unreliable sources. Two of them are the same: one article written in a predatory journal, and another reproduced in a reliable newspaper.

Also, this article was moved to draft just a few weeks ago and brought back without adequate improvements. Astra Travasso (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, my search for sources has not found much. Certainly nothing that couldn't be dealt with (and is dealt with) in a sentence or two on the Nagaland entry. I didn't want to comment on the political side, but yes, it does seem to be an article in service of a political narrative.

Procedurally, the deletion was in part because the draft already existed so discussion is fair. However, no evidence of notability was presented at the previous discussion.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Astra Travasso @Boynamedsue @JunosangAlso look at related articles on Hinduism in Arunachal Pradesh, Hinduism in Meghalaya and Hinduism in Mizoram Idk if all of these nominations can be made together. Had to clean up a lot of POV forks, and Unverified original synthesis that had nothing to do with the sources. Also a lot of such articles appears to be LLM generated and might be hallucination… fyi I did find a ton of misinformation so most likely was an AI slop Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, reliably sourced that upwards of 100,000 Hindus are there. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This answer has no basis in policy. Existence does not guarantee an article, there must be significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources, and the article must not be original research.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per recreation of recently deleted article via previous AfD. --SatnaamIN (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Religion in Nagaland Mr.Lazy Guy (talk)
• Keep The article needs improvement but doesn't need to be deleted, as similar pages like Christianity in Chhattisgarh, Buddhism in Arunachal Pradesh, Christianity in Karnataka exists without much proper citations or deep research

Weichan123 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You arer right but above articles doesn't pass WP:GNG. It required a significant coverage to be have a indipendent wikipedia article.

Their content can be added on other page like Religion in Karnataka. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge into Religion in Nagaland per nom and WP:NOPAGE. Zalaraz (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• KEEP instead of deleting and consider WP:ATD-E for the article. It has notability however requires better sources.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• KEEP The article has flaws but need not be deleted. It needs improvement. Weichan123 (talk)

02:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Religion in Nagaland. Dont see a need for seperate article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete or selective merge to Religion in Nagaland. This article has significant misinformation problems that make it unsuitable in its current form which should not at all be kept. Reference 2 is from arfjournals.com, an unrecognised publisher with no editorial oversight, yet it is used to assert exact radiocarbon dates and push Kachari occupation "possibly" before the 1st century CE, a WP:FRINGE claim unsupported by any WP:RS-compliant source. The Hidimba genealogy section presents what references 5 and 6 explicitly describe as a 19th-century political legend constructed by Dimasa chiefs as straightforward historical fact, directly misrepresenting those sources. The Sanjeevani claim cites a Hindustan Times travel piece and a Mint lifestyle article, neither of which are appropriate for religious-historical claims. This is a significant WP:NPOV concern bordering on misinformation by framing. Also to add to this specifically The Sanjeevani/Mount Pauna claim citing Hindustan Times 2008 and Mint 2022 is a local folk belief presented without sufficient context and framed as a part of Hinduism which again is borderline promotion of fringe theories to promote a specific world view. The census demographics and temple list could be selectively merged into Religion in Nagaland. The history and legend sections should not be preserved in any form without complete resourcing. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Religion in Nagaland Junosang^{leave a message} 05:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• KEEP The article has issues regarding its content authenticity, like Sanjeevani claim from Hindustan Times and Mint, but they are not citation sources that are blacklisted by Wikipedia. Instead my suggestion is to rephrase content rather than deleting the whole article. Weichan123 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  In Wikipedia we follow a consensus not a vote, do not spam keep votes with one single account @Weichan123 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Topic is notable, does meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Also, Nagaland has over 100,000 Hindus, similar to the population of Billings, Idaho, the largest city in Idaho. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just because something exist does not mean it needs an article. Also the article itself is poorly sourced and leaving aside census figures there is nothing else reliable on a google search as well Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Religion in Nagaland. NavjotSR (talk) 10:03, 7 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.

Siege of Baghdad (1055)

Siege of Baghdad (1055) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article fails to show this was a siege. Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Delete - the cited pages of Peacock don't seem to mention any siege. There is a mention of a siege of Baghdad later on in the book but it's about a century later. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Agletarang (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• There was no siege, I agree, but that doesn't mean the Seljuks' taking control of Baghdad in 1055 and the events immediately succeeding aren't worth an article. The question is whether this article is a good starting point or should we start from scratch. So, a WP:HEY candidate if anybody wants it. Srnec (talk) 13:58, 5 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.

Everybody Out! (album)

Everybody Out! (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete as non-notable. I was unable to find coverage on the album online or via ProQuest. (I also nominated the previously-deleted article about the band (Everybody Out!) for deletion.) JSFarman (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Everybody Out! (or delete) – Better covered on the band page. Note: found a review in Flipside: No opinion yet on the notability of the band. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I just discovered that Flipside put out a one-off issue in 2010! I thought they ceased publication entirely in 2002. But beside the point. I'll attempt to find and search Boston Rock or the Boston Phoenix or other Boston music pubs of the time. JSFarman (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NALBUM, redirect makes no sense as the band aren't notable either. FDW777 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Redirects are cheap: if the band article is deleted, the redirect will be deleted with it. If the band article isn't deleted, then a redirect is useful to our readers. Suriname0 (talk) 22:51, 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.

List of Tugs characters

List of Tugs characters (edit | talk | history | 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 contains most of its points unreferenced and has a severe amount of original research and possibly fancruft, the US dub project is simply fan-made (it even mentions so in the videos provided) that i dont think is worthy of mention on this page. Article also may not contain a single reliable source (MAYBE biggcity.tripod.com., but im really stretching on that one), i would attempt to clean this article up, but there are so little sources (perhaps none at all) discussing Tugs characters, so these issues being fixed seem extremely unlikely Gavetheman555 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and United Kingdom. Gavetheman555 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR and WP:SIGCOV issues per nom. This is covered more reliably at Tugs (TV series), and no objection to creating a redirect after. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Tugs (TV series) with the history preserved so that editors may merge any encyclopedic content, provided sources are added. There are indeed sources in the article and it is perfectly permissible under policy to source character descriptions to the work itself per MOS:PLOT, so there is no WP:OR invoked here. Katzrockso (talk) 23:35, 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.

World Economic Journal

World Economic Journal (edit | talk | history | 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 clear indication of notability. The present version is a promotional page created by an obvious COI issue, but the notability issues are obvious in every single version. I couldn't find any reliable sources, and the few sources that did turn up appear to be press releases or paid promotion. Somepinkdude (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of News media-related AfD discussions. Somepinkdude (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and United Kingdom. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious advertising/puffery. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment from connected contributor. I have a conflict of interest regarding this topic, as I am connected with World Economic Journal. I understand the concerns about promotional wording, conflict of interest, and insufficient sourcing. I have disclosed the conflict of interest on the article talk page and submitted a COI edit request with a neutral rewrite and inline citations. The current version should not remain in its promotional form. The proposed rewrite removes promotional language and uses third-party sources, including the ISSN Portal, ZINIO, Magzter, Issuu, OverDrive-powered library collections, Bibliocommons library records, and the United Nations SDG Actions Platform entry that lists World Economic Journal among the tools of the Global Governors Media Space within the Global Initiative for Sustainable Development of Territorial Entities. I respectfully ask uninvolved editors to consider cleanup, draftification, or userfication rather than deletion, so the article can be reviewed in a neutral form with verifiable sources. Robert Gubernatorov (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC) @Somepinkdude: Thank you for reviewing the article. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the article talk page and submitted a COI edit request with a neutral rewrite and inline citations. The proposed rewrite removes promotional wording and adds sources such as the ISSN Portal, magazine-platform listings, library records, and the UN SDG Actions Platform entry. I would appreciate your review of the proposed cleanup when convenient. Robert Gubernatorov (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Your proposed version is nowhere close to being an encyclopedic article, and I suspect that it is AI-generated, as well as the comments above. In the spirits of WP:AITALK and WP:NOLLM, I have collapsed those comments, and kindly request that you express your views in your own words. I don't think you understand the meaning of "reliable sources"; simply mentioning that WEJ is listed on platform X, Y, Z, is not enough. You need independant sources that talk about the journal, or other sources that consider it influential, or quote it frequently. Somepinkdude (talk) 22:25, 4 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.

Equation Group

Equation Group (edit | talk | history | 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 Tailored Access Operations because it seems to be about the same organization. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, Internet, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Strongly agree, just want to make sure not to lose the info in both articles. Conservadont (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Support – per nom FaviFake (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge however there is different information on both the pages and merger should be done diligently.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  so should I just copy the info on Equation Group's article to the TAO's one? or is there a more intricate process at hand? Conservadont (talk) 00:17, 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.

2026 Pallabi child rape and murder case

2026 Pallabi child rape and murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS.. The event is just too fresh to determine if it has long-lasting significance (WP:TOOSOON).. Fails WP:NEVENT.. — Raihanur (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Widespread media coverage and attention. The article needs work and the the title should not be italic. Maybe should be moved to "2026 Dhaka rape and murder", similar to the 2024 Kolkata rape and murder. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  "Widespread media coverage and attention", yes, that's what we usually see in a classic case of NOTNEWS and RECENTISM.. And the case of Kolkata was significantly different from this one. For the Kolkata case, The West Bengal government introduced a new bill in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on 3 September 2024 named the Aparajita Woman and Child Bill (West Bengal Criminal Laws and Amendment), 2024. West Bengal became the first state in India to make an amendment in central laws for crimes of a sexual nature against women and children. which undoubtly meets WP:LASTING. This one doesn't.. — Raihanur (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Even if the event it is too early to be lasting, it does not make it automatically not notable as per WP:LASTING in WP:NEVENT. The Prime Minister, along with several other ministers visited the victim's family. Many of the ministers have also made strong remarks on the trial and investigation. It is not a mere routine coverage. The article is really poorly written as of now though. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Visits from the prime minister do not automatically establish long-term significance or notability... Also, being poorly written is not a problem (for an AfD); we don't judge notability by the quality of writing. — Raihanur (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep due to strong media coverage, however flagging WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP and WP:NPOV as it is an ongoing case. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep While the nominator likely framed this as a viral, regional case, the extensive coverage proves it transitioned into a national and international issue very early on. The nominator tagged WP:NEVENT but seems to have overlooked the criteria laid out in WP:EVENTCRIT regarding broad geographical scope and systemic impact. Per WP:LASTING (within WP:NEVENT): This is not a routine crime log item under WP:NOTNEWS. The guideline explicitly states that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. This include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. It has triggered coordinated multi-district protests-1, a total legal defense boycott by the Dhaka Bar Association-2, a high-profile governmental intervention-3, 4, 5 and formal policy-level pressure from major international and national bodies—including UNICEF-6, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), the Human Rights Support Society (HRSS), and the Coalition for Advancing Equality and Justice—demanding structural child protection overhauls and a independent Child Reform Commission-7, 8. See the direct coverage from International Society for Human Rights-9. Per WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE: The topic has moved well beyond routine breaking news updates. It has received deep, non-mirrored, thematic commentary examining systemic judicial, constitutional (Articles 28 & 32), and social failures rather than mere police event logs. Also this article can be renamed to 2026 Dhaka Child Protection Protests or Murder of Ramisa Akter because the extensive coverage proves it has evolved from a local crime report into a major national flashpoint. Ontor22 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ontor22 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
• Keep. What an awful case, hope some lasting change comes of it. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep This event isn’t just another crime story. It had a major impact across Bangladesh because it led to national protests and even prompted action from senior officials and ministries. Outlets like The Daily Star and Prothom Alo have covered it in depth for a long time, not just in passing. Honestly, it deserves its own article as per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME BengalMC (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The incident is receiving continued coverage. source1, source2, source3. Also there are reactions from international organisations: International Society for Human Rights, Constitution Watchdog. Rht bd (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: keep per above. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 03:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong keep very notable, didn’t even understand why this AfD has been proposed! Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:47, 4 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.

Rosewood, North Carolina

Rosewood, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | 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:NPLACE Bryce M (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and North Carolina. Bryce M (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• comment THis is proving to be difficult. There is undoubtedly a suburban neighborhood of Goldsboro by this name, but whether or not it was ever a town on its own is hard to tell. The topos I can find don't back nearly far enough to resolve the issue, and the aerials aren't a lot better, only showing that the high school was there at the end of the 1950s. Searching is completely clogged by the literal rosewood lumber. I do note that websites of businesses and the like in the area use the name but then identify it with Goldsboro. SO not sure where this is going to go. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with Mangoe that this one is a bit weird. The school and the community and the encroaching growth of the city of Goldsboro all intertwine in this one. But i did a little work on it, and i think its fair to say its a rural community with a recognized identity.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't understand the justification of keep because "its a rural community with a recognized identity". What is a "recognized identity"? Recognised by whom? And why does that justify a WP page? Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPLACE, Delete. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Read through WP:NPLACE again, brain is now functioning properly hence above strikethrough of my vote. Can't give a new vote because frankly I don't know the answer to this AfD either. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:57, 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.

Alan Becker

Alan Becker (edit | talk | history | 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 Animator vs. Animation because most of the article can be merged into or repeats information stated in Animator vs. Animation. Misterpotatoman (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, and Ohio. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge: I did not find reliable sources independently pertaining to the subject. Most sources focused on either similarly-named people or works of his rather than Alan himself. ZeroJaguar (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge. Alan Becker article can fit into a "Background" section of Animator vs. Animation. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• 'Merge as suggested, as the best WP:ATD under the circumstances, where there is no independent claim of notability and a clear target. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Per above. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:30, 4 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.

Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre

Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences & Research 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 and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Found nothing useful in additional searches. Just another WP:MILL institute that doesn't have standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete no criteria for an article is met and WP:NOTDIR. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the first nomination from 2019 ended in withdrawal, as while there were concerns about sourcing and notability even then the then-nominator's main concern seemed to be that this was a diploma mill and was satisfied when accreditation was found. But it would appear that in 2026, this topic area–like so many others before it–is coming around to the reality that "it exists" (which for our purposes is the most the accreditation proves) is not a reason on its own to keep and we're looking for significant coverage, allowing a more broad notability challenge. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

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

KreekCraft (YouTuber)

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

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

Moved to mainspace without consensus given. Either move this back to draft space or (imo) delete it and WP:SALT. Wikiman (Talk) 14:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Draftify – Agreed with Wikiman, this page should not be deleted, as KreekCraft could/could not claim the amount of reliability and notability required, however I agree in which, the page violated against the namespace–shifting standards, as the page was moved into the articlespace, during the AfC review, and this cannot be permitted. MrDevolver (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• KEEP no case for deletion as the person is notable in their field under WP:NWEB and has WP:SIGCOV. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree in which the subject could consist, of a large enough amount of reliability/notability alongside significant coverage, however you're required to know in which, the AfC processing is what really strictly determines, for if drafts including KreekCraft, really claim the depth of reliability and notability required, and that therefore, moving a draft towards the mainspace, if the draft was already declined/rejected, does indeed violate against the namespace–shifting standards, due to in which, when a draft is declined/rejected for AfC, this obviously determines in which, the draft is not yet/is not eligible for the mainspace due to, a possible reason(s) which could cause this of occuring, and that therefore, when the draft does indeed become declined/rejected, this then triggers a valid/authorised method/consensus, of why the draft can indeed be moved into mainspace, and not just immediately move into mainspace. MrDevolver (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Note that the draft was previously declined several times before it was moved. Wikiman (Talk) 20:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Regardless of the amount in which, the draft was previously declined several times, couldn't we continue to atleast attempt, to search for reliability/notability for KreekCraft, regardless of if the page was deleted/salted? MrDevolver (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  What are you even saying? Wikiman (Talk) 17:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, if that occured to be too confusing to read. What I am confirming, is in which, is there a possibility in which, we can continue, to search for reliability/notability, for KreekCraft, regardless of the declinings; previous deletions and salts? Devolver789 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KreekCraft * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

This cant be moved to just KreekCraft as its salted already. This should also be salted imo. Wikiman (Talk) 20:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Dratify per wikiman and devolver, the source "Variety" may be used to establish notability, however many of the sources than "Variety" are not reliable, brief mentions, come from interviews. Dexerto in the references section is still used but is not a reliable source to establish notability. Move to draft page anyway. Artemhao (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  wondering, would "KreekCraft (YouTuber)" page be move and creation protected after this afd? Artemhao (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  After this AfD, if Draftify is selected as the majority result for KreekCraft (YouTuber), no, the page would not be salted. This is due to in which, when a topic/scenario is salted, this fully restricts the topic/scenario, from ever being created within any namespace (this includes drafts; the only individuals who can authorisingly, create a page of the topic/scenario, if the topic/scenario is salted, are administrators, and other high–access Wikipedian users), and to do so, they are required to for starters, delete the page, and then trigger the creation protection of that topic/scenario. However, as I've confirmed within the begin, if Draftify is selected as the majority result for KreekCraft (YouTuber), the topic/scenario cannot just be salted, due to in which, the page was not deleted, and deleting the page is required before salting the topic/scenario, and as a result, the topic/scenario cannot reclaim possibility of salting, unless the page is renominated for AfD, and the majority result is Delete. MrDevolver (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete Article has been deleted SIX times before at KreekCraft. This is simply WP:SALT evasion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, original draft author, would like to say that I did NOT want the article moved to the main space. Crystalite13 (talk) 00:04, 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.

Birthplace of Sukanta Bhattacharya

Birthplace of Sukanta Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | 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 Sukanta Bhattacharya because the content of the page could easily be explained there, and there's too much WP:OVERLAP between the two. Also, the article is just a few paragraphs long. FaviFake (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technically, it's eligible for a SOFTMERGE, but looking at some of the "birthplace-oriented sources" in the article, let's have this for another week for some more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge: Per Nom. I could not find significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. A review of the sources on the article are about Bhattacharya and not the house at 42, Mahim Halder Street. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sukanta Bhattacharya as WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the building fails under WP:NBUILDING. 16:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as the creator of the page, do not merge. The main article is getting too big anyways, which may cause problems in the GA review. Babin Mew (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per above DPRKBEST (talk) 05:22, 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.

Fu's Planar DMAP

Fu's Planar DMAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is too short to be on Wikipedia from my own point of view, with only one reference. Jô^hola 20:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Chemistry-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, having only one source is not a valid reason to delete. The page should have been tagged as a stub & for only one source, both of which I have done. The one paper here has 500+ cites plus there is some other mention in the literature, so a better case for deletion is needed.Ldm1954 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being a stub is definitely not a reason for deletion, but since it's at the AfD, it would be better if we could identify at least two sources. We have one, can we have another?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:22, 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.

Angel's Eye

Angel's Eye (edit | talk | history | 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 Charlie's Angels (2000 film)#Soundtrack because the article fails WP:NSONG, 1 chart position is not enough for notability. Mika1h (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Massachusetts. Mika1h (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Music-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charlie's Angels (2000 film)#Soundtrack as the best WP:ATD under the circumstances, where there is no independent claim of notability and a clear target. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 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.

Bishop Wulstan School

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

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

Doesn't seems to meet WP:NSCHOOL. The only news that I could find is about the school being closed in 2007. - Ivan530 (Talk) 13:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. - Ivan530 (Talk) 13:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep according to this here it could be notable for its architecture. Was it a listed building? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: A search of Newspapers.com provides plenty of evidence of WP:SIGCOV; like almost all secondary schools in Anglophone countries, there is sufficient qualifying coverage to pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Hmm....I've checked the archives too.....392 mentions overall including ROUTINE and minor mentions. For an institute that old, getting even 100+ newspaper mentions is a lot....and here we have almost 400. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:10, 7 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.

Nepali Kalyan High School

Nepali Kalyan High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to List of schools in West Bengal#Darjeeling because this fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL owing to the lack of SIGCOV. Didn't find anything useful in additional searches; just some directories out there. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails under WP:NSCHOOL. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to target in nomination. School lacks significant coverage from sources. Babin Mew (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 17:23, 6 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.

James Powell Calvin

James Powell Calvin (edit | talk | history | 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 coverage, no references. I cannot find almost anything for this person, and nothing that establishes clear notability. Chiserc (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and United States of America. Chiserc (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable. If someone can find a reliable and independent source with some significant coverage, I would not oppose a "Redirect" (ATD) to Delaware State Hornets football or List of Delaware State Hornets football seasons. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - A look at the history page of Delaware State football on here suggests he was coach in 1931, but I can't find anything that backs this up anywhere, including the college's own records (they don't list a head coach until 1933). Nothing else on him. Porterjoh (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom Yojo98 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't meets GNG. Didn't find any SIGCOV in additional searches. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:48, 6 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.

Yagga

Yagga (edit | talk | history | 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, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NBIO and WP:NOTPROMO, was previously draftified but it has been moved back to mainspace without the core sourcing issues being fixed. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Sudan. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: a source review by somebody who is familiar with Nigerian media would be helpful. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – The subject meets the general notability guideline per WP:GNG. The article is supported by multiple independent, secondary sources from established news organisations, including Daily Trust, Leadership Nigeria, The Nation, and Independent Nigeria, as well as regional outlets such as Pulse Uganda, Tuko, and PM Live. These sources provide coverage beyond routine mentions, discussing the subject’s career development, audience growth, and broader media presence, which satisfies the requirement for significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing is independent and not limited to a single publisher or locality, indicating wider recognition. While individual sources may vary in depth, AfD is not a quality threshold for perfection, and the existing sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. Any remaining issues are editorial and can be addressed through normal improvement rather than deletion. Deletion is not the appropriate remedy here. --BusyEditor (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep The sourcing and tone concerns were addressed during the draft stage following discussion with the nominator on my user talk page prior to the article’s return to mainspace. The current version reflects those revisions, including the addition of independent sources and a more neutral tone. For reference, see the prior discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Natanga70#Yagga_moved_to_draftspace Given that these issues were previously raised and addressed, any remaining concerns appear to be editorial and are better resolved through normal editing rather than deletion.Natanga70 (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I see SIGCOV from multiple reliable publications such as The Nation, The Guardian and This Day just to mention a few – all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. While checking his socials, I came across a piece by Pulse magazine stating that he lost his TikTok. Otherwise, he is fairly notable as he is thoroughly discussed in RS. dxneo (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Kenya and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – All sources are either non-significant, WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, or similarly promotional and unreliable reporting. This includes coverage listed above by another editor as reliable like The Guardian (check out some of the other undisclosed promotional slop that author has bylined ), The Nation (not even bylined, and for an org offering sponsored posts its weird I couldn't find any marked as such, bonus points for the site footer casino spam), This Day (non-bylined "featured" article about "The TikTok Sensation"s "journey to fame"), and Pulse (no byline, vapid coverage). Forgive me for the emphasis here but, all four of these articles were published 3 April, they're a coordinated marketing effort, not organic coverage. Some more 3 April sources from the article: .
  Side note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources isn't good, to examine one source there: This Day was added in this edit on the basis that it existed at Wikipedia:WikiProject AfroCine/Reliable Sources, and it existed there because one editor decided it should when making the page . fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would like to note for any potential closer that consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: From an average review, I see multiple secondary sources, followers count , viral content as a content creator, he easily passes WP:GNG, I can see significant coverage, subject has publications across countries which usually indicates importance, in most cases, multiple secondary sources can establish notability, he easily passes WP:BASIC. is a reliable source, also the content here is assessed as a reliable independent source, having and a journalism byline. Allblessed (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  Pulse, The Nation, and The Guardian (the byline makes this one worse actually) are 100% unreliable as detailed above. Follower count and viral content have nothing to do with WP:GNG, and the existence of multiple publications (even cross-countries) does not establish notability. There needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and I've yet to see that. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve seen multiple reliable sources (also the niche of this subject is "Digital content creator", I can see he has established fanbase, coupled with been published on multiple secondary sources) that’s the reason I was able to drop my vote, I know how reputable those sources are, there is no doubt the subject is at least notable for a stand alone article. Allblessed (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  Again, established fanbases and the mere existence of mention in multiple sources has no relevance to notability. The three sources you noted were part of a paid media push across 7+ platforms that occurred at the same time (as explained above), additionally two of the sources pointed out have no byline, and the listed author of the one that does is also attributed on undisclosed promotional LLM-generated slop like this. In light of this could you please how those sources are reputable for the purposes of establishing notability? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This poorly-written and poorly-sourced article undoubtedly fails WP:NBIO and should not remain on this website. Aneirinn (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hello @Aneirinn, what do you mean by "poorly sourced"? Please link the sources that are not up to standard. As for poorly written, yes I agree, but almost every source if not all, cited in the article is listed at Nigerian sources, and they clarify SIGCOV. dxneo (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Presence of a source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources isn't a good indicator of reliability for reasons detailed above. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Dxneo: are you certain you read this article and what was cited before my edits? This article had sources that did not corroborate what was written; many things written in the article were not in the citations. Significant coverage is not present on this article. Aneirinn (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean the subject is not notable. The article might need a little clean up and maintenance, which can be done in minutes. Draftifying til the content is in sync with sources the wouldn't hurt. dxneo (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: meets WP:GNG on the sources cited in the article. Stand-alone profiles are significant coverage, and these sources appear to be reliable (and independent), and there are a bunch of them.--BusyEditor (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Edibiz Which sources? could you point them out? Stand-alone profiles are significant coverage. Profiles? that sound most likely like AI hallucinations to me. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 07:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Thilio, check out these sources: Pulse Uganda, Tuko Kenya, The Guardian and Mpasho. I agree not every profile is automatically strong, and any promotional or interview-style pieces should be treated cautiously. But where an independent newspaper gives focused coverage of the subject beyond passing mentions, I think that can still count toward WP:SIGCOV.

  --BusyEditor (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Please see details above which I am +1 with it, from my point of view this becomes Sisyphean dialectic of the same sources. If there are new/old sources apart from the ones (coordinated marketing effort, not organic coverage) that has been cited in the article currently please point em out below the new RC. And please stop using bridge to nowhere see WP:AITALK. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'll address the two sources not already covered above: Mpasho is a summary of an instagram video featuring majority quotes from Yagga and is not significant coverage. Tuko Kenya is also mostly a summary of a video from Yagga, not significant, additionally the parts that aren't summarizing the video are instead drawing from an interview, so not the most independent coverage. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to discuss late offered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 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.

Material

Material (edit | talk | history | 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 Material science#Fundamentals or just Material science (MSE). This page is about what is studied there, and that page has all the relevant context, as it should. It is almost impossible to write an article on the word that is more than a dictionary definition without creating a weak fork of MSE. In fact almost all the content here is really nothing more than a list of what is better explained there. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, and Technology. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment it could also be redirected to Material (disambiguation) with a few edits to that target.Ldm1954 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this is indeed only the second nomination for an article at this title (the first in 2014 ended in deletion). The nature of the "AfDs for this article" box means a lot of false positives for numerous other AfDs for articles whose titles start with "Material" that have nothing to do with any iteration of this subject. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I have taken the liberty of manually replacing the list for the box with only the ones actually for this article. Morwen (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Material (disambiguation), but include the current Material#Classification by use in the disambiguation list.

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and move contents of Material (disambiguation) and the Material#classification by use section to Material, with the leading link directed to Material science.

Fishsicles (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and do what the above response says. What is this article really going to discuss? The thing that materials science studies? But that's essentially "the different forms stuff can have and how they work", and the different forms of stuff all have their own articles, while the way they work is covered by materials science articles. The stuff itself is covered by Matter, and the abstract idea of some stuff being different from some other stuff is covered by Object (philosophy). Simply put, anything you try to do with this article beyond just listing off other articles has already been done by one of those other articles. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  To my mind matter covers substance from a scientific perspective, whereas material is concerned with more practically relevant properties. Even if pruned down to a set index this provides a navigational overview of materials used in society that matter does not provide (and should not). Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is a fair point, but Material (disambiguation) is already thing. I suppose technically my !vote should be Redirect to Material (disambiguation) instead. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 23:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't wish to push this too far, but the DAB page is for all uses of "material" that have nothing to do with its plain English meaning; a very different function than Material currently serves, even setting aside its scope for improvement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Unmix the articles. Do not redirect in any form to Materials science. That article is currently a mix of topics, partly materials science and partly material. "Materials science" is an engineering field that developed in the 1950s with the application of quantum physics and quantum chemistry. It is described this way in the lead paragraph of the current article. As an encyclopedia we should have an article about that field and not fill it up with other stuff. The use and characterization of materials and their bulk properties started long before the 1950s. Limit the content to to the research and engineering field, as shown by the tables of contents of Introduction to Materials Science and Materials Science for Engineers, and by the requirements for an engineering degree in the subject. Move the rest to "Material" including the early history. We have two separate category trees in this area Category:Materials and Category:Materials science as well as the separate Template:Navbox materials and Template:Branches of materials science. Unmixing the article content will give us the appropriate articles to match. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  With apologies StarryGrandma, but I very much disagree with your interpretation of Materials Science. It is true that it developed within Engineering Departments, but there are also fundamental differences in how it is approached both in the US and abroad. It emerged from Chemical Engineering and Metallurgy, and the key historical sources are Mori Fine's articles since he is the person who coined the term. Depending upon which department and source you want to look at, it can be heavily science oriented (e.g. Northwestern) to much more engineering departments or industry focussed programs. Until recently most faculty in MSE departments had PhDs in physics or chemistry.

  It is also important to differentiate between what is taught in introduction classes taken by all engineers, for instance the textbook you quote, and what is taught to seniors and graduates. Plus the NSF support which funds (funded?) many physics and chemistry faculty in the US.

  For obvious reasons I have strong opinions on this, sorry. But this is also tangential to this redirect discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as the term is much more general than just materials science. I expected a disambiguation page, but the present one functions that way covering many topics. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, per StarryGrandma and Graeme Bartlett. This is a broader topic than material science, deserving of a broad overview encyclopedia article. The current version has problems, but the content is not so problematic as to require deletion, and even as it stands goes beyond a dictionary definition. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:47, 7 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.

Serafín García

Serafín García (edit | talk | history | 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 significant coverage of this soccer player. Corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia is likewise a short dumping ground that only provides regular references to primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Uruguay. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails SPORTBASIC, SPORTSIGCOV, and NBASIC. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: It certainly doesn't help there seem to be multiple sharing his name, but there's nothing notable on this guy I can find. Porterjoh (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Even es.wiki lacks WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: Ping. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - good work on improvement here. GiantSnowman 18:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Judging from their biography the article subject seems clearly notable to me: They spent most of their playing career with Uruguayan, Argentine, and Paraguayan top-tier clubs, including three two stints with Peñarol, making over league 400 appearances and three dozen in continental competitions.(BDFA profile, Worldfootball profile) As for coverage of the subject, a newspaper article from El País (Uruguay) () is definitely WP:SIGCOV, Telenoche Uruguay () has a little more. The fact that García is interviewed about Peñarol in 2025 () suggests they are a prominent former player which in turn makes more coverage online and offline likely. I will expand the article and see what more I can find. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Edited 12:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep did anyone's WP:BEFORE extend past another Wikipedia - one that I regularly check and usually find to be happy with not providing sources? Did people notice the subject played in Spanish-speaking countries and such coverage would most likely be in that language? Did they search within the major news websites of those countries? Robby's improvements are great. AFD is not cleanup. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good rescue by Robby.is.on. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per HEY, also pinging @Svartner to judge the expansion. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 6 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.

MacTheRipper

MacTheRipper (edit | talk | history | 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 article Isla🏳️‍⚧ 11:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 11:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)