Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

23 May 2026

More information Purge ...

Purge
Shortcuts WP:AFD/TWP:AFD/T WP:AFDTODAYWP:AFDTODAY

To nominate an article for deletion or merging, follow these instructions.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 21 (Thu) May 20 (Wed) May 19 (Tue) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

More information < May 22, May 24 > ...

< May 22	May 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Adelstein–Lew controversy

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, and borders on a violation of WP:BLP. 1. WP:NOTNEWS: The subject matter is a single poker hand and the resulting social media fallout. While it received significant coverage in 2022, that coverage was "news of the day" and has not translated into long-term encyclopedic significance. 2. WP:POVFORK: This article functions as a POV fork. The relevant, verifiable details of the incident are already covered (or should be covered) in the biographies of the individuals involved. Maintaining a standalone page for a "controversy" that resulted in no legal findings or structural changes to the industry is an unnecessary emphasis on tabloid-style reporting. 3. BLP Concerns: Given that the investigation found no evidence of cheating, the existence of a standalone article titled "Controversy" places undue weight on unproven allegations against a living person. 4. WP:MERGE: If any historical value remains, it is best handled via a Merge into Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade Lew, where the incident can be contextualized within their broader careers rather than standing alone as a "cheating" allegation page. Banalnasal (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Dot's Pretzels

(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)

List of Calgary Transit Bus Terminals

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

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

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

Isaac Yacob

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Basketball, and Indiana. Porterjoh (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Zandvoort Formula 2 round

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

Doesn't establish notability, nor does there seem to be any for a race that only ran as part of the championship for two years. There are individual articles for each of the races which honestly seems to be enough. Porterjoh (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Tyler Guilfoil

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

I added some sources to this in recent edits, but still think it's borderline for WP:GNG. Interested in thoughts. Hasn't played in the MLB, but plays in a 'partner league'. Porterjoh (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Baseball, and United States of America. Porterjoh (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Easter in Nigeria

(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)

Kavyanjali – Sakhi Savali

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

I propose redirecting because there is really nothing on the coverage side of things, apart from some routine updates. Doesn't really seem to set on the notability parameter. There has been a lot of edit-warring, and this AfD may bring some peace. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 16:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 16:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 BWF World Championships qualification

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

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Delhi. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

List of Tugs characters

(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)

Sohagpur SK Pilot Model High School

(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)

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)

2026 Pallabi child rape and murder case

(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.. Likely fails WP:NEVENT as well.. — 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)

Visceral Evisceration

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

Questionable notability. No notability-contributing references in the article and I could not find much in my search on the internet. LillaRis87 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. LillaRis87 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Rosewood, North Carolina

(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)

Nahunta, North Carolina

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

Fails WP:NPLACE Bryce M (talk) 14:32, 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) 14:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Italian Disability Rights Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 14:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Kleinschönau

(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)

MSC Ultras

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

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

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

Why delete this page?

It contributes to important ongoing information of Bangladesh Domestic Football.

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

Similar kind of Page called 'Bashundhara Kings Ultras' are also present in Wikipedia. Why delete this one? Ramis Wasi (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

If anyone follows football in Bangladesh they'll definitely agree to this! Ramis Wasi (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Badminton at the 2013 Palarong Pambansa

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

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

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

Birthplace of Sukanta Bhattacharya

(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)

Wisconsin Institute for Discovery

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

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

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

Fu's Planar DMAP

(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)

Golyevka

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

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

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

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

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

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

leteeNot a notable location. SenshiSun (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
See this sattelite map (buildings are visible on it, there are 13 of them in total). Keep by WP:NSETTLEMENT as populated, legally recognized place. Insider (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
It's a farm, that's what the it's classification is, that's what the population is consistent with, that's what you see in those pictures. Evidently temporary in nature also, since it's no longer there. FOARP (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Classified by whom? By you? It's not farm, it is деревня = village. 13 buildings with courtyards now (more before). The village has not gone anywhere and still exists to this day. See map. Insider (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
It’s registered as a “personal subsidiary farm” in the Russian cadastral survey, “village” is just one possible translation of the term Derevnya, which can also be translated simply as “rural locality” - you may recall the Iranian Abadi case (which can also be translated as “village”) where the locations all turned out to be shops, farms, factories, pumps and so-forth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hideto Tomabechi

(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}}.

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)

Harlem Academy

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

This article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New York. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Quibim

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cinco Días, Santiago Millán, 18 July 2025

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

El Español Reportajes, Samuel Domínguez, 13 January 2025

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

El Confidencial, Víctor Romero, 9 July 2025

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

Expansión, Mar Benavente, 11 November 2025

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

Zaki et al., 2022, Neuroradiology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline:

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

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

Regarding WP:CORPDEPTH:

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

Additional sources for WP:SUSTAINED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act One (2026 film)

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: The film releases in a few weeks, how is doesn't pass WP:NFILM ? KingArti (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
@KingArti, could you elaborate on why this passes NFILM? Releasing in a few weeks should not play any factor meeting NFILM. -2pou (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comment: The biggie here is that in its current state, this doesn't pass NFF. To pass NFF, you have to establish where the film meets NFILM. Since an unreleased film is unlikely to gain major awards or get reviews prior to its release date, this means that it must be established via its production. To establish notability for the production, you have to show where it's received non-routine coverage. Stuff like notifications that it will screen or announcing a new cast member typically are not going to count towards this, as they're usually press releases that have been slightly reworded, if not reprinted verbatim. There's often no commentary/criticism included, just a basic notification. The issue with saying that it will release in a few weeks is that we can't guarantee that it will get additional coverage. It's extremely likely that it will, given the cast, crew, and where it will premiere, but it's never a guarantee. There have been moderate to higher profile films that have screened at major film festivals and not received coverage. It's rare, but it does happen. So to establish notability here we would need to establish how the production was notable and all we have are two routine notifications that it's in the Tribeca lineup. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
As you have agreed that at current stage the film doesn't pass WP:NFF, what's wrong to Drafify it and bring to mainspace after release when there will be reviews? SatnaamIN (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, but I hadn't had a chance to search for sourcing before making that. I'll try to look for sourcing today and report back. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Draftify or redirect to director's page. Given that it will release relatively soon, I think that redirecting with history would probably be the better option here. That way if/when the reviews start rolling in after it premieres, it can just be restored and wouldn't have to go through the process of moving the draft live. I suppose the draftspace could be good in case there's a flurry of articles about the production, but in my experience with the average film festival release, these tend to pop up around the same time as the reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep I'm willing to assume that anything that's releasing in three weeks at Tribeca with that many bluelinks in the cast list is going to meet NFILM as soon as the critics get their hands on it. No point in moving it just to bring it back. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Draftify via WP:TOOSOON I think it makes the most sense to wait and see what the significant coverage is like after the premier. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Draftify. Speculation about how it will do after release is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. M kuhner (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Serb uprising of 1848–1849

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

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

Moved from Talk:Serb uprising of 1848–1849 § merge Serbian Vojvodina

– FaviFake (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge Serbian Vojvodina

There doesn't seem to be a substantial difference in the topic of these two articles - they both talk about the same events. --Joy (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake not sure why you're so insistent on this discussion formatting, but okay. --Joy (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Joy The PAM process is being deprecated, so all formal merge discussions created after March 2026 are held at AfD. You can alternatively have an informal discussion on the talk (without using the PAM templates), or boldly perform the merge yourself :)

See WP:AFD2 for how to nominate articles for merging at AfD. FaviFake (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping we could use Talk first to brainstorm what is the better destination. I guess it can happen here, too.

Possible other options beyond the current two titles include for example:

Serb Vojvodina uprising of 1848–1849
Serbian Vojvodina uprising of 1848–1849
Uprising in Serbian Vojvodina (1848–1849)

Thinking about it, the middle option sounds pretty natural. --Joy (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, this is a merge nomination, not a RM. First we should get consensus to merge, and then boldly move the resulting page, or discuss it at WP:RM FaviFake (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying this discussion formatting isn't exactly right? :D --Joy (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the title "Serbian Vojvodina" is inherently ambiguous with simply Vojvodina being the present-day Serbian province, I doubt this transient historical usage is sufficiently distinct for the average English reader. So it'd really have to be "Serbian Vojvodina (1848–1849)", at which point the titles are even more similar. --Joy (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

"Serbian Vojvodina" is a terrible title. Srnec (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Granted. No objections to merging the content under a better title? --Joy (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Austria, Hungary, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Los Angeloser

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Texas. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Shubhi Sharma

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

Failed In WP:ACTOR EditorOfBollywood (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Noting that I've partially undone the temp account edits that preceded this AfD's opening, which removed most of the article's sources. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 16:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
I will undo again and listen whenever you undo or revert something please check WP:BEFORE first. Some references may look weak initially but they still need proper verification before removal. ~2026-30724-66 (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-30724-66: WP:BEFORE refers to the steps one takes before nominating an article for deletion, not something one does before adding a source. Your edit removes:
2019 Times of India article

2019 Bhaskar article

2020 Times of India article

2014 Bhaskar article

2013 Times of India article

2022 Times of India article
Leaving only two sources: a different 2013 Times of India article and a list of awardees for the 5th Bhojpuri Film Awards. I am no expert on Times of India/Bhaskar and it is possible these are paid or otherwise not independent. But that is something which optimally would be discussed here, in the discussion about whether this subject has significant coverage, rather than simply removing them and giving the impression that the sources do not exist. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Amauju

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

It has had an unreferenced tag since May 2011. I looked for references and couldnt find any. The coordinates in the article are in a neighbourhood in Orlu, Imo, but "Amauju" doesnt seemed to be named at that spot. Entering "Amauju" into google maps gets me nothing. Although "Ama uju" shows up on google maps as some sort of roadside pullout in nigeria. This "place" doesnt seem to exist and i feel does not meet wikipedia's notabilty criteria. Masterhatch (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep this appears to pass WP:NPLACE due to the attacks on Nigerian Christians in the region (unfortunately) I found this source about an attack there: [] it has also been mentioned in this research gate article: []. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Rheno-Flemish mysticism

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

Moved from Talk:Rheno-Flemish mysticism § Merge

– FaviFake (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This article duplicates German mysticism. They should be merged. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

German mysticism is a narrower category. This article also includes mystics of the Low Countries, especially Flemish, who received the German (Rhineland or German Dominican mysticism) often not naïvely but critically, and with reference to sources preceding Meister Eckhart as well. If we had to, we could merge them, but I would instead add additional sub-articles on the Mysticism of the Low Countries or other sub-schools (there are several). Scholarship has not settled on one overarching label for all of them, hence the overlap. Spelare108 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. I have no objection to the title of the article being "Rheno-Flemish mysticism" but there should be one overarching article. I don't think there is a distinct German school. Srnec (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, Belgium, Germany, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear: I never nominated anything for deletion. This is such a stupid process. Srnec (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Cave Companions

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

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

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

Merge

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

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Iran, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Isabella Troy Brazoban

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Ankit Dev Arpan

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

There are few sources that have anything coming close to significant coverage on this person, with this article, published by DNA India, being the best I can find. There is also this article by OneIndia, but most of the attention there is towards the company/platform he co-founded, and that is a general trend in the citations on his article. A lot of those citations are to sites in Hindi on the article, and while translation tools are far from perfect they do suffice to see that a lot of those articles are not primarily about this person. So as it stands I just don't think there is enough for WP:NBIO to be met here. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 09:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 09:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Archaeology of Peace

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

Looked at this several times. Note tag placed. Coverage based on authors own books. Failure of WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The article's subject meets WP:N and WP:NACADEMIC. The foundational monograph, Divine Fertility: The Continuity in Transformation of an Ideology of Sacred Kinship in Northeast Africa (Routledge, 2020), was awarded the 2021 SAfA Book Prize (Monograph) by the Society of Africanist Archaeologists — the field's dedicated professional society — recognising it as an exceptional contribution to African archaeology source. This constitutes independent, expert third-party recognition of the work's significance, directly satisfying notability criteria. The concept was additionally presented at a British Academy Global Perspectives lecture (2020), covered in New Scientist, and delivered as a Hague Talk. Per WP:IMPERFECT, insufficient sourcing in the article is a reason to improve it, not delete it; the subject's notability is clearly established. I am the article's creator and disclose this accordingly. ~~~~

Tinasimonrowe (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. All the sourcing I found outwith the article was either the author talking from the central concept or the book itself, as specific to the subfield. So its seems to be all WP:PRIMARY and only attributable to her. That's insufficient to pass WP:GNG. See what others say. scope_creep^Talk 14:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - I think we would need to see much more direct evidence of the phrase being used in this context, and I'm not seeing it. Incidentally there's a section on the page at present which is a quote from someone about the author's PhD thesis. It turns out that this is from a press release written by their university communications department, so it is quite misleading to suggest it is an independent comment on the work. 16:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Machan AI

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment - according to this, the creator of the app is called Chamidu Fernando, which matches the username of the SPA account. Coincidence or COI? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the screenshot in the draft also shows the name "Chamidu", so I'm pretty sure that this is a COI. --gurkubondinn 10:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment ^{(heading to a Delete)} - I would be surprised if this article was LLM output or assisted by an LLM, which is grounds for a deletion by itself. I noticed WP:AISIGNS, such as WP:AITITLECASE, extraneous subheadings, the overuse of em-dashes and WP:RO3.
An example of WP:RO3 in the article, if your wondering: It supports common web technologies including HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and can provide guidance on project structure, component design, and framework usage. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Nevermind, Press Delete - Every source (duped too) that have been introduced by the recent revision are not WP:RS or WP:INDEPENDENT at all, failing WP:GNG.
As a note, SPA account added back WP:AITITLECASE and em-dashes—including nonexistent categories. < i added that emdash on purpose
I have a big suspicion this is LLM output now. Thoughts? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Delete, clear failure for WP:GNG. The only sources provided are from the company website, and searching around I can't find a single article mentioning them. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 11:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as I could not locate any reliable sources that talk about this. Also obvious LLM use and the creator seems to be the owner of the subject. Laura240406 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Soumya Vilekar

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

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

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

Nika Khanjani

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

May not be enough here for WP:N/GNG KH-1 (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Iran, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
"May not"? So, did you do a WP:BEFORE, or do you want us to do it for you? MediaKyle (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Snow Feinan Li

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. New AfD opened for the qualification article. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 BWF World Championships

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

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

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

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

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

Andes virus infection

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

I propose merging Andes virus infection into Andes virus because:

Combined page would not be in WP:SIZESPLIT territory, (AV=20k + AVF=32k)
Consistency: I found no virus other than Andes virus that has one article for the virus and another article for the virus infection (but see Note below):
- Two viruses have an infection article but no virus article: Snowshoe hare virus infection (Snowshoe hare virus), and Human papillomavirus infection (Human papillomavirusHuman papillomavirus^[redirect])
- There are hundreds of virus articles without a corresponding infection article
- only Andes virus also has a parallel 'Andes virus infection' article

Note: using Cirrus search to verify some of this may be complicated by potential search anomalies; see T427107. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep It is different from other hantavirus infections in that it spreads between people. There are a bunch of coronaviruses yet we have an article on COVID19. This virus also only occurs in a specific area of South America in the Andes. Another example HIV (virus) and HIV/AIDS (disease) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  The pages being merged are not Andes virus and general Hantavirus, both pages are specific to Andes Hantavirus. There is a separate page for hantaviruses as a whole. As you mentioned, there is only one article for COVID19. We only need one article for Andes hantavirus. ~2026-30903-96 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  
  Yes, it is different from other hantavirus infections, and per WP:AT sentence two, that is a great reason to keep the title 'Andes virus' separate from 'Hantavirus' (or, if both of them had the long name, to keep 'Andes virus infection' separate from 'Orthohantavirus virus infection'). But there is no policy-based reason that I can see to keep 'Andes virus' separate from 'Andes virus infection'. If there is, what is it? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  Oops, sorry, someone else just said that. Mathglot (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Snow Keep - notable, and adequately sourced and written. - Please also consider if any of you find it strange that the "Andes Virus" article has been section-blanked early in the day (" 01:52, 23 May 2026"), and a few hours later a Delete-or-whatever nomination follows.--At least one ~~The two~~ involved, seem to be de facto supporters of text that includes, "Human-to-human transmission of ANDV is sometimes reported. Although a systematic review of research did not find sufficient evidence of such transmission, experts consider it to be possible between close contacts while noting that ANDV is not highly transmissible". ~2026-30971-07 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-30971-07 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
That is a non-sequitur. Presence or absence of person-to-person transmission is not the determining factor in Wikipedia policy about when two separate articles are needed in pathogen articles. Also, you forgot that notability includes the test about whether to create a standalone page, and even come the day when h2h is multiply reliably demonstrated to the point of having a literature review published nailing it, that still won't change Wikipedia policy about when to write a page about it. Plenty of rodent-borne arenaviruses have h2h, but we don't have articles about Lassa virus infection, Argentine hemorrhagic fever infection, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever infection, Lujo virus infection, and so on, although drop the word infection and all of those turn into blue links.

If you are claiming that the need for a standalone article is based on one exceptional characteristic in the nature of ANDV with respect to other hantaviruses (a non-policy argument, but let's go with it for the moment), then that would apply also to Reston virus (only ebola virus to make the jump, but benign to humans); HPV (most are mild/asymptomatic; only a couple are oncogenic); Mokola virus (only lyssavirus not primarily related to bats); and even Smallpox virus (redirects to 'Smallpox') although most orthopoxviruses are zoonotic, smallpox was basically h2h only with no animal transmission. And none of those examples have a paired, 'Foo virus infection' article; not even for Smallpox infection / Smallpox virus infection. None of these appear to meet the bar for a standalone article; the infection subtopics, notable as they may be, are covered in the main article. I see nothing exceptional about the subtopic 'Andes virus infection' that makes it appropriate for its own article, either now, or at some future point where a literature review supports its unusual nature. It should be handled the same way as all the other cases having some unique characteristic unlike other variants. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Trinity Anglican School

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

This article about a private school is mostly sourced to school directories and lists of routine school information, apart from a decent source about the school building. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found sources to add. I don't think it meets WP:NSCHOOL. Suggesting redirect to the locality, White Rock, Queensland (Cairns Region), where it is mentioned and sourced. Note for searchers: it is sometimes referred to as Trinity Anglican College. There is a deletion discussion on the article's Talk page from 2004, with a range of views. Tacyarg (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. Tacyarg (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Lingokids

(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.

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 : 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)

María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide

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

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. The Kearny-Iturbide papers prove she had died at age 3; contraindicating hoax claims she had descendants. Also, the page lacks reliable sources. JayzBox (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related AfD discussions. JayzBox (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Hungary, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment. This is a very confusing page, as the subject is barely mentioned in the text, and most of the events described happened years after her death. If there is some conspiracy theory about her having secretly survived to adulthood, it needs to be clearly explained and sourced. pburka (talk)
Comment The article seems to have info about the subject confused with her sister named "María Gizela Anna Iturbide", who is apparently the one who died in 1875 while the subject herself died in 1949 nahle.ghini (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Well spotted. In fact, the first version of this page (2006) has the correct lifespan. pburka (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
In fact the page had the correct information until a few weeks ago. There seems to be some sort of campaign to "correct" this history through original research. Editors are advised to inspect the page history before reaching any conclusions on notability. pburka (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Note the subject's father's page was also recently edited to remove mention of her sister, conributing to the mix-up nahle.ghini (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Neither version of the article has reliable sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to ][Salvador de Iturbide y Marzán]], her father. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This is ridiculous. Someone mixed up information between her and her sister María Gizela. María Josepha was a real person who died in 1949. There are documents proving this, including those of her husband and descendants. The entire reason the correct information was removed is because a single user, Mkeller87, has claimed this through ERRONEOUS original research, where he mixed up María Josepha and María Gizela. Brother Jerome (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
But is she notable? pburka (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
I think she was. Just as her father, insofar as she was the head of the Imperial House of Mexico Brother Jerome (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Eddie Gallagher (chef)

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Television. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - the person’s page is poorly supported by the third party sources. And the current blog and dependent sources are not reliable or deeply cover the chef.--Leuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Trouble T Roy

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Two of the refs are mentions in AllMusic on his role in the group and the other two cover his death. I'd propose to merge it to Heavy D and the Boyz but that's just a redirect to Heavy D. Nighfidelity (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Dance, Music, United States of America, Indiana, and New York. Nighfidelity (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep there's an uncited Village Voice interview with Pete Rock in the article. It's borderline, but there are enough sources to justify keeping this. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep - He was well known at the time of his death, which generated contemporary news coverage, and he is still remembered in a retrospective fashion as seen at , plus one of the existing references. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL claim from the nominator may have been influenced by the unnecessarily elegy-like text in the article, which could be toned down. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: It is a memorial. It is missing significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The article goes from a one-sentence lead straight into a Death" and then a "Legacy" section. One source is titled, "R.I.P. Trouble T-Roy: Family & Friends Still Reminisce 20 Years Later". The first Allmusic reference only lists the subject's name, "Died", "Genre", and "Member Of". The L.A. Times Archives source is mainly about the accident. The last Allmusic source is titled "Heavy D Biography by Steve Huey". It has passing mention of Trouble T-Roy's fall and death. The article does not come close to a "full and balanced biography" for a "standalone article". -- Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep per borderline sources and lack of WP:SIGCOV. However, I'm still leaning towards a keep considering that the subject is deceased. Retro music11 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Glyndwr Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public–private joint management

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and China. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It's not an LLM translation. I used machine translation with double checking their accuracy, which, from my knowledge, is allowed in Wikipedia. I copied the sources from the Chinese page but I did check them. I was just not sure to update the retrieving dates afterwards. The Account 2 (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

More information snippet from LLM-generated review ...

snippet from LLM-generated review

Example 1 (Direct translation of an Opinion Piece):
- The Article: "If the Shanghai High Court regards the trade name and other non-material private property as part of the enterprise's assets, it is equivalent to recognizing the trade name, trademark, goodwill, and logically, it must also recognize the entrepreneur's talent... political economy is cited when seizing, and Western economics is cited when defending; those who forced Wang Laoji and the descendants of Wu Liangcai back then can now legally occupy their trade names to make money."
- The Source ( "上海高院如把字号等非物质性的私人之物视为企业本身的一部分资产，这就等同于认可字号、商标、商誉、进而在逻辑上也必然认同企业家才能... 抢夺时援引政治经济学，保卫时援引西方经济学，当年逼迫王老吉们、吴良材们的人，现在却可用其字号发财。"
- Issue: This is a literal, word-for-word translation of a subjective blog post by researcher Liu Yuanju.

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

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

Hippo Press

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: it is well-known in New Hampshire. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Please see WP:LOCALFAME and WP:ITEXISTS. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Newspaper is not notable. The article lacks enough third-party sources to establish notability. This newspaper is not a newspaper of record and has not won any notable awards. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Eric Schucht, are the references you added from the Bangor Daily News and the Concord Monitor available online anywhere? I'd like to check those out to see if they're SIGCOV. While I was unable to find SIGCOV myself searching newspapers.com, my impression of Hippo Press is that they are a significant New Hampshire publication, and that's reinforced by the quote here that they are the largest weekly newspaper in the state. So per WP:NMEDIA I'd like to try to see if it's possible to save the article. Sdkb ^talk 02:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Those sources are in Newspapers.com. I've gone back and added the URLs in the article. Eric Schucht (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Weak keep. I converted those two images into clippings, so that editors without newspapers.com access can see them (anyone can access clippings, but you need an account for images, so it's always best to make clippings). The Concord Monitor coverage was significant but the Bangor Daily News coverage was not. However, I found some additional significant coverage of the paper from The Portsmouth Herald. With that, we now have multiple notability-qualifying sources, and given WP:NMEDIA's encouragement to be generous (there are around 70 Wikipedia articles that cite the Hippo Press, and it's useful for readers of those articles' references to be able to check out what we say about the Hippo Press to assess their reliability), I'm willing to let this stand. I am, however, going to nominate Manchester Express to be merged into it. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 15:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Express. Sdkb ^talk 15:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep - not award-winning sourcing but enough to confirm its existence and role, which is all we need. The Manchester Express article should be incorporated into it, as has been suggested. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

2026–27 Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. season

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

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

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

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

Keep: There is no necessity to remove or draftify this article. The 2026–27 Scottish Championship is scheduled to commence on 31 July 2026. ICTFC are the champions of the 2025–26 Scottish League One and will be promoted to the higher league for the upcoming season. The fixture list for a new season is usually announced by the Scottish Professional Football League in June, i.e., SPFL fixtures for 2025/26 released on June 20. The squad is already in place, aside from any transfers, loans in, or loans out that may occur before the close of the summer transfer window, i.e., List of Scottish football transfers summer 2025. Reliable references have been added to verify the current content of the article. Therefore, the article should be retained and can be expanded with additional information and sources in due course. QEnigma 论 06:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep- After @QEnigma:'s improvements and comment. New season starts in 2 months. Fcstmani (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep – A season of a Scottish first-tier team meets the WP:NSEASON criteria. Improvements / more sourcing will occur during the course of the season. Svartner (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Anand Sansthan

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

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Edward Sunday

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Unreliable sources known for brown envelope journalism.

Source 1 says he "bagged" an award for "his doggedness, selfless service and distinction in the music world, Myles Leadership University, has awarded Edward Sunday a honourary doctorate degree". Source 2, AI written; "His diligence to duty, result driven character, self motivation as well as key interests in perfection and paying undivided attention to details has always given him an edge above his contemporaries when it has to do with service delivery in reputable organisations. Some of these include consultancy services, production management services, sound installation services etc." TitCrisse (t•c) 20:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related AfD discussions. TitCrisse (t•c) 20:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Tho, I was surprised to notice that this article was nominated for speedy deletion by the same AFD nominator , An Admin has declined the Speedy Deletion for this article, with a note b/c there are indications of significance. This article was just moved to mainspace, It should have been given enough time to be developed, I don’t think there was a proper WP:BEFORE, Subject Meets WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. The content are verifiable through references and there are no indications of paid promotions, by the way The subject has been news worthy for years from my research. I noticed some of the news sources were not well written, this isn’t a take away for a possible delete, As I’ve now added more sources and improved the article. This source is reliable, independent and has significant coverage. Allblessed (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 04:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Wikiproject Nigeria lists "PM News" as a generally reliable source and the article mentioned by Allblessed does a lot to shore up notability here. M kuhner (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Italian tuneup

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years

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

I propose merging to Global surface temperature and Hockey stick graph (global temperature) per general consensus in RM 30 Apr 2026. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Ping to users involved in prior discussions: Catskul, Chidgk1, Dave souza, Dragons flight, EMsmile, Ed Poor, Femke, KimDabelsteinPetersen, M.boli, Neodop, NeonMerlin, NeonMerlin, RCraig09, Stephan Schulz, Synoman Barris, Tony Sidaway, Tony Sidaway, Treetoes023, and William M. Connolley. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Retain this article during the merge so that the content is still here as a source. It will be a non-trivial, time-consuming project for whoever moves the content. ~~Delete afterwards.~~ —05:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Strikeout added —RCraig09 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
@RCraig09 Merging the article and then deleting it is procedurally impossible per WP:CWW FaviFake (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

??? . . . WP:CWW merely requires we give credit to sources. Retaining this original file retains the edit history of its content. My 05:01, 23 May post merely said to leave the current file in place until its contents have been moved during the merge. Then change it to a redirect (I should not have written "Delete afterwards".) —RCraig09 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Jim Corrigan

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

Merge with "Spectre (DC Comics character)". "Jim Corrigan" is mostly synonymous with the Spectre character rather than it's own name and the page is just a list of summaries that could feasibly be added to the Spectre page instead. CosmicMordecai (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related AfD discussions. CosmicMordecai (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Ascension Theory

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Asche (band)

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Debt Badge

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. Whonting (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, Economics, Technology, United States of America, Kentucky, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Habibi Yah Habibi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hinduism in Nagaland

AfDs for this article:

(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)

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 On Ramblin'

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

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

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

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

Alfred Freeman (Essex cricketer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe Redirect to Edward Freeman (cricketer, born 1860) and add a short paragraph there about the other cricketers in the Freeman family - if Edward is notable? There's a paragraph on Alfred in David Lemmon's The Book of Essex Cricketers p65, but the next entry is for Edward and talks about several players in the same family. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
If a redirect is better (which I'm getting the impression it might be), I can think of a better redirect than that: One to List of Essex County Cricket Club players. I think the latter is more the standard for situations like this, more so than to a fellow family member. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Agreed and also I'm not so sure about the notability of Edward either honestly. I might AfD that one too, it seems to be in about the same scenario. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 20:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
I did find an obituary of Edward Freeman on the British Newspapers Archive; it's not a lot about him, but it's something. If only I could find one for Alfred. Anyway, perhaps this is an issue that I have with my own editing tendencies, but I'd probably attempt to work on Edward's article as well if I felt I had the time and energy to do so. (And if I wasn't committing myself to "save" two other cricket articles at AfD.) -- JustJamie820 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
No, it's quite a noble pursuit. And, since it already appears closer than this one, I may go for such a dive myself as part of WP:AFDBEFORE. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 21:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Principality of Chechnya

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Bromine test

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

Moved from Talk:Bromine number § Bromine test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congenital limb deformities

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

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

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

Merging with Dysmelia

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

Other suggestions:

Redirect "limb difference" to this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Sharer

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak keep - there are actually three good sources: Business Insider, NBC4, and People. Whether it's significant coverage is questionable. I had not followed him, but a couple of accounts that I do follow, follow him. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
The NBC4 is an announcement about his tour dates and People is mostly quotes from the YouTube video he shared, In a video shared Monday on his YouTube account... so not independent. S0091 (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The Audience Engine

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chhotubhai Gopalbhai Patel Institute of Technology

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

C. K. Pithawala College of Engineering and Technology

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

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

B.D. Arts College

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Schools, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: ^{(Since this is my first time participating on a AfD discussion...)}

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

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Prajnanananda Institute of Technology & Management

AfDs for this article:

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

Related Articles