Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27 April 29 >

Purge server cache

Ignyte Award for Outstanding Creative Nonfiction

[edit]
Ignyte Award for Outstanding Creative Nonfiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable award. No deep analysis, any sources I can find just lists the awards. --woodensuperman 14:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for the following several reasons.
(1) The page Ignyte Awards as a whole has already survived an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion in 2022; see here. The awards are clearly notable. Deleting the subpages (Outstanding Creative Nonfiction, Anthology/Collection, etc) simply fragments coverage unnecessarily.
(2) The decision to create separate articles for each award category was made through discussion on the Ignyte Award talk page here, where consensus was reached and the pages were split off.
(3) These subpages effective function as lists. Per WP:LISTN, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. A list of award recipients serves clear navigational and informational purposes for readers researching the award or its winners.
(4) The list satisfies WP:CSC #3: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.
(5) Per WP:SPINOUT, splitting a large article into logically distinct sub-articles is encouraged editorial practice. Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. A dedicated article for each Ignyte Award category is a great spinout. It improves navigation, reduces article length, and allows each category's list of recipients to be maintained cleanly over time.
(6) Furthermore, see WP:BEFORE; I am unclear why the article was proposed for deletion instead of merger. At the absolute worst, the content here could be merged back into Ignyte Awards which are clearly notable. I do not agree that this would be a good merge given that it would substantially impact the page size, but merging is much preferable to deletion. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dibrugarh University

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

Sourcing is almost entirely dibru.ac.in subpages plus AICTE/NCTE/PCI/NAAC approval PDFs and NIRF tables. fails WP:SIRS on independence. Regulatory accreditation and banded NIRF placements are WP:ROUTINE database entries, not WP:CORPDEPTH coverage. The article itself is a WP:NOTBROCHURE / WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation: 18-row hostel bed-count table, guest house room inventory, table-tennis-table counts, paragraph-per-department prospectus copy, and prose like "dynamic and innovative academic Centre dedicated to the comprehensive study of the Earth's landscapes." The promo-words banner at the top tells the story. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Julita Jagodzińska

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

Subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kruti Dev

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

A typeface. Quite possibly useful. The article claims it is widely used in India, which might also be true. I can however find nothing in the way of independent reliable sourcing that confirms anything much beyond the fact that it exists, and can be downloaded. Wikipedia notability criteria require significantly more coverage than this, and anyway I can't see how useful an 'article' is which does nothing but direct people to repeatedly spammed websites where the typeface can be found. Anyone wishing to use the typeface will be able to find it quicker without using Wikipedia as an intermediary AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see independent reliable sources, and I have added some to the article. Most of the rest seem to be about Kruti as a benchmark for handwriting recognition/OCR/general accessibility discussions. They note its wide use etc.Drew Stanley (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No generally reliable sources besides font downloads. BSH (talk) - (they/them) 17:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep — Here are the sources I found in additional searches:
  1. Page 62 of this book and 8th page of this document states "The Kruti Dev font (widely used in northern India, particularly in official documents) assigns the digital code 0064 to the same character. If we try to convert a Hindi document created in Kruti Dev font into braille, then the braille conversion software will convert this character into braille dots 145. On the other hand, if you type a Roman alphabet lower case "d" into a digital device and apply the Kruti Dev font to it, then it will display the Hindi character "ka". However, screen reading software will still read it as "d"."
  2. Page 460 of this book states "Unicode ensures interoperability and searchability of data, which legacy fonts like Kruti Dev do not. Kruti Dev is a legacy font that maps Hindi characters onto English letter keys, meaning the underlying text is still English characters. This makes the Hindi text non-searchable and garbled on systems without that specific front."
  3. Page 61 of this book states "The need did not seem necessary because readers know that in 1997 the Kruti Dev and Shusha fonts for Devanagari had already been made, and early sites and blogs were operated with those fonts." That's a significant info.
  4. This, this and this have details about the usage of the font, which keys/shortcuts on the keyboard correspond to which Hindi character.
  5. A GScholar hit yields 6-7 small mentions.

Overall, looks good enough to save the page. That's a lot more than crappy download sites. Kinda borderline for WP:GNG with all these coverage. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Neither passing mentions nor non-reliable sources (e.g. random stuff on scribd, which is frequently uploaded in violation of copyright) establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the Scribd issue! I totally forgot that it often uploads copyrighted material. Striking that off. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Guillén

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Preetha Krishna

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

The subject don't have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most sources cited are either affiliated with the subject, Profiles, passing mentions, or paid articles(ANI). Kimumuhi (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. The article has 31 references. Amongst those are TheEdge Malayasia, The Chalk Board Mag, Hans News Service, TimesNow News, The Hans India, The Hollywood Reporter, TED, Options, Naver.com Japan, The Times of India, Penguin Books Australia, Huffingtonpost, ANI News, ED Times, Business News, Gobal Prime News, Sports Mint, Business Standard India, The Hindu, Indian Kanoon, Atria Books and Simon and Schuster. Strong keeep. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gereon K. This article has the bones, it just needs the meat. JTZegers (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some major sources detailed analysis: 1. The Edge Malaysia, interview, 2. References No. 2 Podcast, 3. The Hans India, interview, 4. HuffPost, author profile, 5. The Hans India, promotional article, 6. Hollywood Reporter, passing mentioned, 7. The Edge Malaysia, interview, 8. ANI, paid article, 9. ED Times, Brand Voice, paid article, 10. Business News This Week, Page not found and Unreliable source, 11.globalprimenews.com, Unreliable source Kimumuhi (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input required. The keep votes are highly assertive and the source analysis suggests the policy is against the sources. More input would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Boudar

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

I didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about him, just database profiles and match reports. Svartner (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom
Saenryl (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jawadia Arabic College

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

Fails WP:ORG. Absolutiva 22:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Ramsay

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

He apparently participated in only this competition, without achieving a significant result, and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Qawmi Madrasa Education Commission

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

A triffling activity as part of the government’s routine tasks that received almost zero significant coverage. Rht bd (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Joy dol

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

Sourcing in the article is thin and what's there doesn't really hold up. The Biswas Sibsagar book is cited three times but with no publisher, ISBN, or page context beyond "p. 48" and "pp. 48-49", and the Gogoi Geography of Medieval Assam citation is similarly bare. The other two refs are travel sites (Tour My India, Native Planet) and Vikaspedia, none of which establish notability. A BEFORE turns up mostly tourism listings and blog posts, plus passing mentions in coverage of the broader Joysagar tank and temples group. Nothing I can find treats Joy dol as a standalone subject in depth. Merge to Rudra Singha (or to a Joysagar group article if one exists or is created), otherwise delete. Yes the king who build it is extremely notable but notability is not inherited. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also just to make participants aware, the current article is copyright violation almost verbatim from: "Sibsagar" by S. S. Biswas, published in 2011 by the Archaeological Survey of India Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Here are some of the best ones I found:
  1. [3] (ASI) - "The temple is popularly known as the Kesavanarayan or Jaidol Temple. It was built during the reign of Ahom king Rudra Singha (CE 1696-14) and dedicated to Lord Vishnu. It stands on the eastern extremity of the northern bank of the Joysagar tank. It was excavated in memory of his mother Joymati. The temple proper has an octagonal Garbhagriha or sanctum sanctorum topped by a dome like structure and adorned with honey- comb designs and lotus medallions. The external walls of the main temple are also beautifully decorated with stone plaques richly carved with figures of various Brahmanical divinities including incarnation of Vishnu. On the western side, a square mandapa is provided. It is connected with the main sanctum through an antarala or vestibule. A small brick structure meant for kitchen house or bhog-ghar lies adjacent to the main sanctum. There are two small temples lying behind the main shines and are known as Surya and Ganesha temple respectively."
  2. [4] (IJFMR) - "Built by King Rudra Singha (r. 1696–1714 CE), Joydol is dedicated to Lord Vishnu and stands on the northern bank of Joysagar Tank, also constructed by Rudra Singha. The temple is circular in shape and features a garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum). Notable for its height of approximately 30.48 meters, the temple showcases depictions of Lord Vishnu's incarnations. Traditional plaster made from lime, jaggery (gur), black lentils, fish (borali), and egg was used in its construction. Two nearby shrines are dedicated to Surya and Ganesha. The temple follows the Nilachala style, resembling the Kamakhya Temple in structure."
  3. [5] - Pg. 103
  4. [6] - "The Joydol, also known as the Kesavanarayana Temple, stands out as the most exquisite. Renowned for its elegant proportions and intricate external decorations, it is considered the finest example of Ahom temple architecture. Architecturally, the Joydol is built in the Nilachal style with a Pancaratha plan, and its shikhara features a distinctive dome shape."
  5. [7] and [8] - Has some information.

That's good enough SIGCOV to meet WP:NCHURCH. Many more are there with little little infos, which can be used to expand the article. BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @BhikhariInformer I am still leading towards a delete, for this specific case. The references are extremely sparse and no significant coverage exist. The best source is definitely the ASI one but I am hesitant on taking others as a reliable source. IJFMR (International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research) is a well-documented predatory publisher. It basically publishes anything and the editorial board is sketchy to say the least. [9] See this thread on research gate as well. I had also written an essay on identifying predatory outlets at WP:Fools Gold which you might find helpful. Then, StudyIQ (studyiq.net) is a commercial exam-prep platform (UPSC coaching material). It's a tertiary aggregator at best, not an independent reliable source. Page 103 of a slideshow deck establishes nothing about notability to be honest.
SKIREC (skirec.org) SKIREC is another low-credibility academic body associated with predatory conference/journal publishing. The excerpt itself reads like it may itself be sourced from the same ASI material. This journal is also included in the Beall's List [10], so I will not say the source is reliable enough to establish notability.
The archive page is noteworthy but it doesn't really go into much detail either to warrant an independent article as its just in passing.
Then finally the 2017 tourism listicle from Outlook Traveller... the travel magazine is basically an equivalent of a blog post. It mentions the Vishnu Dol in literally just two sentences as a side note to the Shiva Dol, gets the builder wrong by attributing it to Queen Ambika rather than Rudra Singha, and exists solely to tell tourists where to eat and sleep in Sivasagar. It establishes nothing about the temple's notability as an independent subject. So this won't be enough either.
But as I suggested, a redirect to Rudra Singha or mentioning a few lines about it in that article should work. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I hadn't dug deep regarding the quality of the journals. Thanks for decoding them. But you know......for religious sites of these sort, which is more of a tourist spot than a place for worship, SIGCOV in news articles is usually not available and here's the same. I think I would prefer not to discard the sources in this case because in every case, best quality journals aren't available, but that shouldn't undermine the significance of the SIGCOV available in the existing journals, which have documented a significant historical site. But yeah, at worst, I don't mind merging a few lines to Rudra Singha. So......I don't have much to argue though; I'll just WP:DTS and let the consensus to decide. Regards! 🙂 BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yea I get that, unfortunately I think as much sad it is its the case for almost all things in northeast even state universities with what I came across 😔. yes Let the discussion play out.... but at the same time as an academic myself, I am strongly against inclusion of predatory journal content as they might misrepresent the place and people a lot. Unreviewed claims about architectural style, dimensions, historical attribution especially on wikipedia get picked up, recycled, and suddenly you have misinformation baked into multiple articles. So it's not just about meeting Wikipedia's sourcing bar, it's that those journals can actively introduce bad/fake information. For places, communities that are already underrepresented, and a Northeastern myself to me personally that's arguably worse than having no coverage at all. Anyway, the ASI source stands on its own and is solid. If consensus goes toward a merge, a few well-sourced lines in Rudra Singha is probably the most defensible outcome for now. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sibsagar University

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

Article has just one citation, and it's to the predecessor college's own website for a journal page. Everything else is unsourced. A BEFORE search only turns up routine UGC and AIU recognition announcements (Sentinel Assam), which fail WP:ORGDEPTH, plus the usual admission aggregators and the text of the Act itself. Nothing qualifies as significant independent coverage of the university. Half the prose is about the 17th-century Joysagar Tank and Ahom king Rudra Singha, not the university. The rest leans on words like "historic", "prominent", "picturesque", and "culturally rich" The current version is unsalvageable. Delete, without prejudice to recreation once proper sources exist. might be a case of WPːToosoon as well Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Debabrata Das (academic)

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

WP:BLP that fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, and reads as a CV/promotional piece. Of the five citations, four are primary or affiliated sources: ref 1 is the ARGUCOM website's own VC profile, ref 3 is an institutional page (ASU), ref 4 is the Tezpur University faculty profile, and ref 5 is an Arunachal Pradesh planning board listing. On WP:NACADEMIC, nothing in the article demonstrates the named criteria which is no evidence of a highly cited research record, named chair, major academic award, fellowship of a major scholarly society, or impact in the discipline. serving as VC of a state university can satisfy C6, but ARGUCOM was dissolved in December 2023 and merged into Sibsagar University, and the parent institution itself is at AfD with marginal sourcing Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Rajiv Gandhi University of Cooperative Management

[edit]
Assam Rajiv Gandhi University of Cooperative Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing is sparse and doesn't establish notability. Ref 1 is a UGC state universities list. ef 4 is a Muslim Mirror piece on the World Education Summit where the focus is "minority education" generally; ARGUCOM's award is at best a passing mention, not significant coverage of the university. That leaves ref 2, a 2013 Economic Times announcement that this was India's first cooperative management university... which is routine. A WP:BEFORE turns up little beyond UGC listings and reposts of the same 2013 announcement. The institution itself was dissolved in December 2023 and merged into Sibsagar University, and there is no sustained independent secondary coverage across its 13-year existence to support a standalone article. Fails GNG and WP:NORG Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya

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

The sourcing here is overwhelmingly primary. Of the 15 citations, eleven (refs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15) are RGPV's own website. Ref 3 is a UGC list of state universities, a government directory entry that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. A WP:BEFORE turns up the usual admission aggregators and reposts of the university's own material Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Government Medical College, Kadapa

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

The article rests on just two citations, neither of which establishes notability. Ref 1 is a brief 2009 Hindu news item about RIMS offering para-medical courses. a single short news piece on a routine course offering, not significant coverage of the institution itself, and falling well short of WP:ORGDEPTH. Ref 2 is a dead-linked archived directory listing of MBBS colleges, which is a database entry and explicitly excluded under WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE turns up only NEET cutoff aggregators (Collegedunia, Careers360, MBBSCouncil, Edufever) and the college's own website, all of which are either directory-style listings or primary sources and don't count toward GNG. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Gandhi University

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

Did some cleanup to salvage this article as its a central university and one of the only few in Arunachal. However I do not think the sourcing doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Refs 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15 are all RGU's own materials (profile page, annual report, brochure, NAAC self-study, affiliated colleges list, alumni page) and don't count toward GNG. Refs 7 and 13 cover Prof. Tamo Mibang's retirement and death, not the institution itself, while ref 3 is about Arunachal statehood and ref 6 is a Sonia Gandhi speech with only a passing mention. Ref 2 is a routine NAAC accreditation announcement (WP:ROUTINE), and refs 9 and 14 are directory/database entries (Collegedunia, NIRF table) that fail WP:ORGDEPTH. That leaves refs 4 and 5, both Arunachal Times features pegged to Statehood Day anniversaries, same local outlet, commemorative framing, and content closely tracking the university's own narrative. With nothing substantive beyond one local paper and the university's own publications, I don't see GNG cleared. Also to note that simply because its a central university, does not make it pass NSchool or GNG Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sacksonville

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

This was short lived, as evident by the lack of WP:Lasting sources. Either delete or redirect to the 2017 Jacksonville Jaguars season. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Selective Merge to 2017 Jacksonville Jaguars season as a WP:ATD. Couldn't find any WP:LASTING coverage for this. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going to go against the grain on this one per WP:NTEMP. I think the Sacksonville defense received enough WP:SIGCOV in its heyday to fulfill WP:GNG, regardless of how short-lived it may have been -- I think the first three references are at least a start in that regard, and I think there's more out there. On the note of WP:SUSTAINED impact, here are some pieces from after 2017 that make reference to the Sacksonville nickname and unit as an enduring analytical touchstone, even if the unit itself was a bit of a flash in the pan: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] And a few more pieces from the Sacksonville era proper that could count for something: [17] [18] DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 04:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging all that have commented (Besides me, because what's the point of pining yourself?) @WikiOriginal-9 @Frank Anchor @Let'srun. Any thoughts on the sources found by DiscoursesonLivvy? Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - This was the nickname of one team's defense for essentially one season and there is little information about the nickname that is not specific to the season. There is no reason the nickname needs a separate article from the season article. Rlendog (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tehseen Wajahat

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

Fails WP:GNG. Typical unreliable sources such as Reviewit.pk and Fuchia Magazine. Nothing in-depth and even the roles show supporting, some of which aren't even mentioned on the corresponding Wiki pages until OP just added them. CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tamo Mibang

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

Not much here to merit an article. Sources are not neutral, and most are just obituaries or regular mentions after death. No significant coverage Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, India, and Arunachal Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vice-chancellor of the Rajiv Gandhi University seems good enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC. The university seems to be a major one, besides being the oldest in a state. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The relevant WP:PROF criterion that could plausibly support keep is C6, the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution. A vice chancellor only nominally qualifies under that criterion if it is the highest academic post, but at Rajiv Gandhi University that is apparently the Chancellor. This seems to be a close call, I admit, but lack of notable coverage outside this bare fact seems to cut against notability under WP:PROF. The notability rules there are largely because it is often difficult to assess notability of academics, because of specialization of research and teaching, etc. Since the subject's only claim to notability is vice-chancellor, however, I think the balance tips in favor of deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At most Indian universities the vice chancellor is the highest-level administrative post and the chancellor is a ceremonial position. Do you have evidence that RGU is exceptional in this regard? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The article lists a chancellor, but if that is ceremonial I guess I could be persuaded that the article might be kept. Seems like a silly basis for an article though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I would not consider RGU a major academic institution under WP:PROF. I n a way... "only university in the state" reflects geographic monopoly, not academic prestige. Plus sources are almost entirely regional Arunachal outlets plus death notices. No national academic press, no coverage of his scholarship outside the northeast. This cuts against independent notability even under other PROF criteria. RGU just has a small regional footprint, and serves a small, sparsely populated state. Compare to VCs of Delhi University, BHU, or Hyderabad... institutions that are unambiguously "major." So I dont think wiki guidelines of WP:PROF applies here Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. I agree, it's a weird IAR sort of case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of stage illusion

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

This mess likely needs WP:TNT. The topic is likely stage illusion (which redirect here). It's unclear if this is separately notable from Magic (illusion), where Stage magic redirects too, and what is here is hard to salvage. We have a few sentences of prose, with refs to books with no page numbers, followed by unreferenced lists of stage illusions and stage illusionists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Karate1 Premier League

[edit]
2022 Karate1 Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of independent notability, no in-depth coverage provided. The article creator moved the draft back into mainspace a few hours after draftification without addressing the concerns or explaining the move. JTtheOG (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Majority of the sources I found were WP:ROUTINE. They don't go in-depth on the event itself.
Saenryl (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Western Association of Schools and Colleges - Senior College and University Commission

[edit]
Western Association of Schools and Colleges - Senior College and University Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability tag repeatedly removed. I couldn't find the necessary independent indepth sources to establish actual notability. All suggestions for what may be the best merge/redirect target are welcome. Fram (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename. I removed the notability tag because there's no appropriate article to merge it into, and none was identified in the drive-by tagging by the person who added it originally, nor was any discussion or reason given. The article it was split from is Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which legally doesn't exist anymore.
All of these pages already link to the new article (which I have had no prior involvement with), and removing the article would create redlinks: [[19]]. In addition, most of the articles relating to 4-year schools that still link to the old article should probably link to this one instead: [[20]].
If the article is deleted, then all of those become redlinks. If it is merged into the old article, then the title of the article is for an organization that doesn't legally exist anymore, and the lede uses the verb "was".
However, the new article title is not correct for WP's manual of style. It should probably be something like "WASC Senior College and University Commission" to match the acronym "WSCUC" (which the organization itself uses) and the domain name wscuc.org, as well as WP:COMMONNAME.
Independently of that, the article is incomplete and without secondary sources, but that just makes it a stub. That tag in the header is correct, and improvements are needed. ~2026-17015-36 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"the article is incomplete and without secondary sources, but that just makes it a stub." No, stub is about the length of the article, not about whether the sources are independent or not. Independent sources are needed to establish notabiliy (which isn't decided by number of incomng links or some other metric), and we don't keep articles just because deletion would create a lot of redlinks. Fram (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian R'Mante

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. All I can find is:

Asian Law College

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

Article about a non-notable law school, sourced only to press releases, a dead link which is supposed to verify its accreditation info, and an entry in a database which (according to its disclaimer) collects its data from the schools themselves. There is no claim to notability. The article was declined a couple of times in AfC and was then moved to mainspace by its creator (who has made no edits to other topics, and has not responded to questions about COI/paid editing). After redraftification the creator moved it back, so here we are. bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

already replied there is no paid editing about this article. ~2026-26031-96 (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Hefazat Grand Rally

[edit]
2025 Hefazat Grand Rally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan made article of an event that is routine activity of an organisation. Coverage cited as the reference are just WP:ONEEVENT. This event can be described in the article of the organisation. Rht bd (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metrolina Library Association

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; a BEFORE search found nothing of note. PROD was removed without comment. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Just because a source is not on the internet does not mean it doesn’t exist. Did the person deleting this bother to check local sources or just do a google search? Do they live in the general area? (I do). This is a local organization so they are not going to show up in the New York times. Local newspapers such as The Charlotte Observer and The Charlotte Post have local coverage of events they sponsor, the work they do, and the events they are a part of. I lived in Charlotte and know this to be the case. Just because they are not indexed by Google or publicly available on the internet does not mean they can just be ignored. Themeparks (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide specific examples of significant coverage about the library association itself? I was unable to find significant coverage from a web search; if there is significant coverage in print-only sources, please provide information about them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sarjis Alam

[edit]


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

Article has same level of coverage as recently deleted Nasiruddin Patwary article. No in-depth reporting, routine coverage on par with general politicans statement coverage in local news. Greatder (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to delete this page seems something political as all of the things stated in the controversies section have been backed by his own statements and coverage by other news outlets ZerkoNyan (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Syedsadi387681 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but: I think the plan of the bio is not very accurate, the Activism/Political career seem to be speaking about the same thing and should be mixed together. Also the part on controversies is well sourced but I think for the bio of a politician, it's clearly undue that most of his WP page regards his controversies with nearly 5x less content on basic biographical information, so the biographical section should be improved to match the amount, I believe. Except from that, it seems sourced by several national level sources at least and seems to be allowed to stay for sure. --Aristoxène (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarjis Alam was one of the leaders in the July Uprising that happened in Bangladesh in 2024. He is one of the senior leaders of National Citizens Party as well as someone who nearly won a constituency in Bangladesh. His credentials are relevant enough for him to have an article in his name alongside his achievements and controversies. ZerkoNyan (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject easily meets WP:N for his role as a key coordinator of the Students Against Discrimination movement that played a key part in the 2024 July Revolution, and there is an abundance of WP:RS covering the subject including international outlets like NYT and prominent national ones like The Daily Star; the article can adhere to WP:V due to these reliable sources. The article should, however, put more emphasis on the subject's conservatism and anti-LGBT commentary, such as calling LGBT people "mentally ill" and a "cancer to society" as has been reported by numerous sources.
  • Keep - A big part of the controversy section is just explaining his stance on LGBTQ and other conservative culture war issues. I'd like to say that there should be a separate section for politics/beliefs where his stance and ideology must be explained, and International Human Rights organizations' reaction to his views should be in the controversy area, in this way we are not cluttering the controversy section, and still explaining his own politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharloon (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am seeing that pretty much everyone is talking about his stance on one political issue as the main reason for deletion initiation. I should inform that, I proposed this AfD because I felt like he has had less notable coverage than Nasiruddin Patwari, another July revolution leader. These articles both have similar scope and notability and yet seems to be getting different treatment. There is even less in person interviews, coverage and reporting on Sarjis than there is on Patwari. With this in mind, I think it's prudent to delete the article until enough notability is established through in-depth reporting. (The discussion in question which I feel has gone the opposite direction for pretty much same quality and quantity of sources.) Greatder (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reason people might be writing about Sarjis Alam instead of Patwary is because S. Alam made some comments, in fact has repeatedly made comments about a particular issue. Nonetheless, this is true that the Wiki page for N. Patwary is practically non-existent, I think we should look into this, and try to make Patwary's page more informed, instead of deleting the perfectly okay page of S. Alam that explains his political stance, it's important to inform the reader of his political stance, as he is a politician himself. Pharloon (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pharloon I am perfectly happy to have this article stay if there's 2/3 notable newspaper having a profile on him like this example from an essay page: NYT Greatder (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LKR (TV series)

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

I prod tagged this without checking the history carefully enough – it had already been prodded and deprodded once, ten years ago. I see no shred of notability and can find no independent, reliable sources talking about the show. bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Hefazat Delegate Conference

[edit]
2020 Hefazat Delegate Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan made article of a minor event that is a routine activity of the group. The event can be described in the article of the group, this Article is unnecessary. Rht bd (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Velma Gaines-Hamock

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

Only notable for one event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ramses Cleland

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

Diplomat with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. Perhaps someone can dig up coverage available in Twi? JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOG, The subject meets notability requirements under WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO through verifiable service in senior diplomatic & governmental roles of clear international significance, including as Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva. Such positions constitute high-level state appointments with substantial responsibility in multilateral diplomacy and are routinely regarded as inherently notable where reliably sourced. While much of the available coverage is event-based, it is independent, consistent, and sufficient to verify both the offices held and their significance; Wikipedia policy does not require exclusively biographical features where notability derives from holding major public office. Accordingly, the subject satisfies notability through the combination of high office and reliable sourcing, consistent with established inclusion standards for diplomats. Should we agree for a Keep and further improvement? Ataavi (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t use AI in a discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG I left a question at the end. I am very much interested in hearing what you have to say. Ataavi (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination misapplies WP:GNG by dismissing multiple sources that provide non-trivial, contextual coverage, including career detail, attributed policy statements, and leadership roles in diplomacy. Examples of such sources are sources news outlets such as the nominator’s own-cited Vindobona, The Daily Graphic, The Africa Report, and The Ghanaian Times. Deletion here sets an unreasonably high bar not required by policy. Ataavi (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep the article as it is well written, cited, and verifiable. The article meets guidelines for a standalone article per WP:GNG and should be safeguarded from WP:ZEALOUS Osy (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where is the actual SIGCOV? I'm not seeing it. Also being an ambassador to another country does not meet ANYBIO. There are like 195 countries. Does every ambassador to every other country get an article? That would be potentially 38,025 articles on current ambassadors. Also, please do not accuse other editors of being racist. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiOriginal-9 - I am going to comment on your second statement. Did you actually read WP:ANYBIO before commenting?. I will pull up a quote from the section Basic criteria from there for you."If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Ataavi (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REFBOMBing is not the way to go. In the case where there's five sources on a single sentence, do any of them actual verify his appointment following the completion of his ambassadorial posting, or all they all just passing mentions describing him as being in that role to inflate the citation count? JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the contribution of an editor who sought to help out after the nomination for AfD under WP:GNG. There was no instance of five sources on a single sentence prior to your nomination. I saw that you made a cleanup of the lead section which shows that you may want to help keep this article. The issue of refbombing as you say have to do with just two sentences in the whole article. How many sentences are there in the article without instances of this? Ataavi (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC aren't the same thing. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CompareForexBrokers

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

Unclear if this meets WP:NCORP, I'm not seeing WP:ORGIND coverage. KH-1 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey KH-1, either you're nominating the article because it fails our criteria, or you're not. There's no "I'm not sure" nomination. HighKing++ 19:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG through multiple independent sources covering the company and its activities in the online trading industry. Coverage exists in mainstream business and financial media discussing forex broker comparison platforms, broker rankings, and related industry analysis produced by CompareForexBrokers. These sources provide coverage beyond routine directory listings or trivial mentions. The article also documents a notable shareholder dispute involving Australian entrepreneur Adir Shiffman that was covered in The Sydney Morning Herald, demonstrating independent reporting about the company itself rather than merely its services. This satisfies the requirement for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.
Comparison and research platforms in financial markets are commonly covered on Wikipedia when they receive independent media attention and play a role in the retail trading ecosystem. The presence of multiple independent sources discussing the company and its activities indicates that the subject meets WP:NCORP. While some sourcing currently includes press releases or routine coverage, that is an issue of article quality rather than notability. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, the appropriate remedy is improvement and better sourcing rather than deletion. — Herinalian (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to Crunchbase, Korbl is also founder of "Best Prop Firms" and InfographicDirectory.com.au. IgelRM (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which has nothing to do with *this* company. HighKing++ 20:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assessment may be a bit strict regarding WP:NCORP / WP:SIGCOV. Notability does not require a single long profile; it requires significant coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources, which can be satisfied cumulatively. In this case there are sources discussing CompareForexBrokers’ research, industry rankings, and market commentary, rather than merely listing the site.
For instance, CBS News discusses broker regulation and leverage rules while citing analysis from CompareForexBrokers’ research team. This is editorial coverage in a major independent publication referencing the company’s research and methodology, not a directory listing. Australian media coverage connected to the Adir Shiffman shareholder dispute discusses CompareForexBrokers as the company involved in the earlier business dispute. Reuters coverage of the CompareForexBrokers awards and rankings discusses the company’s methodology and industry analysis used to evaluate brokers.
These sources are independent of the company and discuss its activities, analysis, and corporate history, which goes beyond trivial mentions. When considered together, they provide the level of independent coverage required by WP:SIGCOV. Herinalian (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are suggesting that each individual source is not required to fully meet the criteria for establishing notability, and that multiple sources taken together can cumulatively establish notability, this is not a correct interpretation of our guidelines. See WP:SIRS. Each source is evaluated independently. If you can point to specific paragraphs/sections within any of the sources which you believe can be independently evaluated and which contain sufficient in-depth "independent content", then we can use that source to establish notability. Otherwise the sources fail the required criteria. HighKing++ 10:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An Open Letter from Shah Ahmad Shafi to the Government and the Public

[edit]
An Open Letter from Shah Ahmad Shafi to the Government and the Public (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very unusual article on a press release that was published in a newspaper. That has no significant coverage in independent media. Rht bd (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mind the Science

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. The sourcing consists primarily of reviews/mentions in a small number of outlets and a niche book award, which is insufficient to establish independent notability under the general notability guideline. A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources beyond what is already cited. LtJohnMaine (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rehabs UK

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

A company that doesn't reach WP:NCORP. The reliable sources don't have Rehabs UK as the primary focus, although employee are being consulted as experts for national media. They have a website, but I can't find a listing at Companies House nor on opencorporates. Has some youtube videos, but not enought for WP:NYOUTUBE. Klbrain (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” The independent sources quoted include more than a “trivial mention”: they discuss the companies’ reports in detail and feature prominent quotes from employees. Added an additional citation from Business Insider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floot11 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest hydroelectric power stations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of largest hydroelectric power stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to List of conventional hydroelectric power stations because these two lists are nearly identical. I cannot identify any difference in purpose between the two lists. They both list hydropower stations. Even if some difference were identified, they contain 99% identical information. The only distinction I can see is that the "conventional" list is sorted (by default) based on Name, where as the "largest" list is sorted by capacity. But all the columns in both lists have sort arrows at the top of the columns, so readers can click on those sort arrows to get whatever sort-order they want. When WP is so short-handed, do we really need two lists that are virtually identical? Noleander (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, my merge proposal still stands: Each of these three distinctions are trivial and easily accommodated in a merged list (with sort capabiltiy at the top of each column). Noleander (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was merge to Minecraft#Other versions per WP:SNOW. No point in dragging that out any further. (non-admin closure) ScalarFactor (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft: Pi Edition

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

I propose merging this article into Minecraft#Other versions because Pi Edition is exactly that: a version of Minecraft. Very rarely do individual ports of games warrant their own article; I am not inclined to believe this one does. It is merely a cut back edition of an outdated version of Pocket Edition (now known as Bedrock). All this page does is provide a more technical overview of this specific version, but not in a good way. Many details that pad out this article, even if sourced or noteworthy about the version, aren't exactly important to an encyclopedia. Why do we care that "Signs are always blank", that "There is no option to select a world name or seed", or that "A bow is available in the inventory, but using it causes the player to hold it back indefinitely until another item is selected". You could easily make a dedicated section to this version in Minecraft#Other versions, talk about how it's cut-down Pocket Edition with unique programming features and a couple other weird quirks, and boom. λ NegativeMP1 16:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Minecraft#Other versions, due to the reasons already stated in the AfD, theres no substantial differences between the mobile port and regular Bedrock Syndilinke (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the above Yojo98 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Too little relevant information to warrant a stand-alone article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the reasons stated above. ChPo ^_^ (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Galicianism

[edit]
Galicianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Information Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
Moved from Talk:Galician nationalism § Merge proposal
 – FaviFake (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I am proposing a merge of these two articles (Galicianism into Galician nationalism) because they cover the same historical, cultural and political movement. Currently, the "Galicianism" article has drifted into unsourced "soft" definitions that attempt to separate it from its nationalist roots (e.g., claiming it does not view Galicia as a nation), which contradicts the historical record and the texts of the movement like Castelao's Sempre en Galiza.

Reasons:

  • Galicianism (galeguismo) is the parent ideology of Galician nationalism. Having two articles creates a "content fork" where one is treated as "cultural regionalism" and the other as "political nationalism," a distinction that is not supported by academic sources like Beramendi (2007).
  • Historically and to this day, the terms were used interchangeably. The "Partido Galeguista" was the primary nationalist vehicle of the 1930s.
  • The Galicianism article is currently prone to fringe additions and lacks the institutional depth found in this article. Merging them will allow for a better "History" section that explains how the term has evolved from 19th-century provincialism to modern sovereignty movements.

The merged article should lead with "Galician nationalism" or "Galicianism" as a broad spectrum, with a subsection explaining the modern "soft" usage of the term by non-nationalist parties (PPdeG/PSdeG). Miiversal (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Dead (MissMatch song)

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

No coverage from reliable secondary sources; fails notability criteria. Was PROD'ed but someone removed template without explanation. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 15:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sovintern

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

The page, at this point in time, is made up of largely unverifable and sources associated with the organisation. additionally, it currently is not NPOV and falls under WP:SOAP and fails to meet WP:N, with the non-sovintern sources listed not being reputable nor the organisation being notable outside of its own primary sources. as it stands, the organisation is not notable enough to warrent its own wikipedia page at this point in time. Syndilinke (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely semantic and does not neglect the historical importance of the Sandinistas and numerous other socialist parties from around the world(including those in charge of several countries) founded a new international. This is pretty big no matter what angel you look at it from. ~2026-26059-15 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
as i said in the initial AfD, there's a lot of unverified claims sourced solely from the SI, which does not meet WP:NPOV nor WP:N Syndilinke (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Error most of them are verified sources, and not associated with the Organization itself, I also given sources ranging from multiple languages. And I can pull sources if you want, from what I’m given you didn’t look very hard for a lot sources and went straight to the garbage bin, can you name any unreliable sources so we may defer away from using them? Andy Florida (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
twitter is not a reliable source (and on the current page revision the syntax on the citation is broken), .prensa-latina is the state media of cuba and (from what i have read) a member of the Sovintern
kaosenlared is a partisan radio station and i believe but may be wrong is not considered a reliable source. additionally, as per WP:N none of the sources meet the notoriety guidelines at this moment in time.
while non-english sources are permitted on wikipedia, english ones are prefered Syndilinke (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
El Diario is a Spanish online newspaper. It has its bias, but here it mostly shows how Sovintern is different from the Socialist International.
Lois Pérez Leira is named by El Diario as a participant, so not neutral.
I don't know Vedomosti.
The Robert Lansing Institute seems weary of the organization.
Prensa Latina and Sahara Press Service are Cuban and Western Saharan state media.
Twitter is here used as a primary source.
Do El Diario + Vedomosti + RLI count as notable enough?
--Error (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I value documenting pro-Russian operations abroad I do not think this is notable enough to warrant an article. ~2026-90791-9 (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is important to stress WP:NEXIST - Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. If the argument goes that the article needs a cleanup so it does not rely on WP:PRIMARY sources, it is one thing. But an AfD is not cleanup (WP:NOTCLEANUP). The question would be if we would have enough coverage from independent, reliable sources to extract the content from. We do. Thus the subject is notable enough to merit an article. Brat Forelli🦊 22:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the key argument here is not really the lack of sources, @Brat Forelli provided a laundry list of them, but rather the state of the article. As previously stated, the condition and manner of the content in the article itself is not grounds for deletion. To restate, alleged lack of NPOV is by no means grounds for deletion. PlebeianTribune (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Sharma

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources are primary. Santa Saana (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Islamic Cultural Centre

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

Non-notable org (or the building it operates from?) that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG (and WP:NBUILDING?). As noted at Talk:Cork Islamic Cultural Centre, there are several fundamental issues with this title that do not appear to be WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Perhaps, given sufficient reliable/independent/verifiable sources, the NOTPROMO and FV issues could be addressed. However, sources of this type don't seem to exist. In short:

  • AD; The article's accuracy is questionable. Its author appears to have conflated the "Cork Islamic Information Centre" (connected to the Shandon Mosque at 73 Shandon Street on Cork's northside) with the "Cork Islamic Cultural Centre" (connected to the Cork Mosque on Tramore Road on Cork's southside). It is unclear which topic the article's author thought to be notable or intended to be the main subject of the article.
  • VER; Four of the eight sources do not mention the titular subject at all. And do not support the text they are placed alongside.
  • IND; The only sources which clearly/actually mention the subject are the org's own website.
  • NORG; I have not been able to find sufficient sources to address the basic issues above. Not to mind establish independent notability.

I cannot conceive of any AtDs (not sure what DRAFTIFYing would achieve - as, in the decade since these concerns were first raised by HyperGaruda, they remain unaddressed even in the main/article namespace; And I can't conceive of a possible WP:ATD/R target - as no other articles even mention the subject)..... Guliolopez (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Teena Shanell Fernando

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

Fails to establish WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Not a single source demonstrates WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Santa Saana (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Xita (brand)

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

Notability not established for WP:NCORP. Most sources are primary including interviews about the founder of the brand and can't find anything to pass notability guideline for NCORP. Santa Saana (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences

[edit]
Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure. Coverage is only routine and limited to info on seats Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Stinson (real estate developer)

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

Poorly written article with run of the mill sources about a property developer. WP:BEFORE returned an interview from 1995[36] and a number of more recent stories about his business struggles but there is not much in the way of biographical WP:SIGCOV. Orange sticker (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more I could bring to the table but I think I'm getting my point across. There are so many available sources out there, comprising coverage which spans decades, that I have to wonder if the nominator checked. MediaKyle (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, I did carry out WP:BEFORE but consider the more recent articles to be WP:ROTM coverage about a business failing. I can't open all your links but the rest seem to be interviews with the subject. Orange sticker (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're seeing the same sources I am, and you still think this fellow isn't notable, then you should reconsider how you assess notability. GNG is so clearly and obviously met for this person that I am absolutely certain it will not be deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: His condos/property developments have been studied in academia [37]. I'd also argue the large fine from the Securities Commission would likely meet criminal notability. We have some sourcing calling him the "condo king" and I can find mentions of him back to the 1990s. Some coverage from a book here [38]. A redirect to the company could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Thanks to MediaKyle for the sources. The article needs improvement, but certainly not deletion. Kqol • talk 21:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Reese

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

Notability not established for WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR. Some of the sources are from online book sellers marketing her book and others did not mention anything about the article's subject and her book. There is not a single review of her book in WP:RS. Santa Saana (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apple Inc. suppliers

[edit]
List of Apple Inc. suppliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Big list of random companies, many of which are not notable, who happen to sell things to Apple. Directly goes against WP:NOTPRICE, and surely cannot stay current. MediaKyle (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists:

"The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists through methods such as only including entries for independently notable items".

Even though I did not need to prove the individual companies' notability, I still tried to limit inclusion to companies with a notable source to include in order to clarify their relationship to Apple Inc.. These companies have been discussed by independent sources in the specific context of being Apple suppliers, often referencing others in the context of geographic distribution or geopolitics.
I would like to understand how this list is unacceptably random and is a violation of WP:NOTPRICE when List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple is a featured article. Although I did not include every source that mentioned it to avoid WP:OVERCITE, Apple's initial release of its supplier list was broadly covered.[1][2][3][4][5] Would it be less random if I added more of these sources? I also do not understand how this "surely cannot stay current" when articles like List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple are maintained. Apple keeps their most recently published supplier list on their website, which was linked in External links. Most of this list is included in their most recent list, and their list does not get unrecognizably changed every iteration.
Please let me know if there is a specific listing on WP:NOTPRICE making this page a violation which I am misunderstanding.

"... business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions".

Ash.tahno (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly forgot about the specific WP:LISTCOMPANY condition, but I already followed that as well. Both the specific and general policy contradicts your notability comment.
Ash.tahno (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into this list, as all sources I checked are good, and there are a lot of them. However, as per WP:NLIST, a list article should have coverage of the topic in the aggregate, and I can't find anything like that which isn't provided by Apple (non-independent), a WP mirror, or some listicle-like SEO (likely LLM-created) garbage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Although coverage of suppliers in general from sources such as Apple in China and The Guardian was referenced already, I have added even more independent, non-"garbage" sources that discuss the suppliers more generally. Ash.tahno (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I feel I may be missing something, but this looks to me like a straightforward WP:NLIST pass. A quick Google Scholar query for "Apple supply chain" shows hundreds of papers, and the first three I looked at all discussed "Apple suppliers" as a set. Few of these sources formally listed these suppliers, but I don't think NLIST requires that; evidently, "the grouping or set in general" of Apple suppliers has been discussed in independent reliable sources. I don't quite understand the reference to WP:NOTPRICE; maybe this is a type of "business alliance"? Suriname0 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE not stable and can become outdated - supply chain changes frequently There is already a section at Apple_Inc.#Supply_chain and any major missing detail can be merged there. Asteramellus (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:
    - Can you please explain which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here? The data is listed in context of the companies's relationships to specific Apple products with independent, reliable sources.
    - I do not understand how this suffers from more of a stability issue than a featured article like List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple, which I referenced above for comparison as well. In fact, is the M&A article not even more difficult to verify since there is no formal list that I can locate? (If there is one, please share. I am curious to see.) Did you look at the actual supplier lists in External links? It can be hard to tell which version I am looking through because they are highly similar. I would like to confirm whether your stability criticism is theoretical or was developed after looking at the evidence. Also, maybe yearly updates to the list (with some intermittent news reports) fit your definition of frequent, but I am not sure if I would agree with that. Ash.tahno (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, had looked at the current list and e.g. entries group supplier relationships by products without clarifying whether they relate to older generations or current models - without any timeframe - sort of open-ended database (e.g. Japan Display is listed for iPhone displays, but it is unclear whether that applies to current models or only past generations). Adding a year column might help a bit, but it does not resolve the issue that the list lacks clear scope - suppliers can change frequently, possibly making the list outdated. Also, regarding M&A, that's a finite scope - so more stable - once acquisition is completed, it does not change. Asteramellus (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the time criticism is fair and was one I had been pondering. Perhaps dividing out former suppliers would be a possible strategy to provide some clarity.
    I understand the worry regarding frequent changes, but I still don't understand why that concern would not be as concerning for (again) List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple or whatever other comparable article. According to a source referenced in the lead of that article:

    Apple CEO Tim Cook tells CNBC the company has acquired 20 to 25 companies in the past six months... While Apple often refrains from announcing deals with small companies, Cook said Apple buys a company every two to three weeks on average.

    I assure you that not only could that list article be outdated, it is not comprehensive either, in absolute terms. There are, from what I can tell, three acquisitions that have been tracked by that list in the time frame referenced by the source. (Around 85% is missing there, to be generous.) Once again, there is not even a relatively recent way to verify its comprehensiveness. But it could still contain all the publicly verifiable acquisitions during that period. When I was searching up all the firms listed in the most recent Supplier list, I had a Reuters article listing the suppliers from 2012 (more than 10 years before) come up over and over. I can go through the other available lists and quantify how much has changed in hard numbers, but I am hard-pressed to believe that an M&A list, for example, is obviously much more stable. Ash.tahno (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the article currently does not try to establish status, as is. It simply documents whether or not a company has been an Apple supplier before. Once an organization has become an Apple supplier, it does not change the fact that it was at some point. I don't see how that is different from an acquisition, as ownership status of organizations can change and does change at times. Could it be clarified with some kind of discontinued supplier relationship categorization? Perhaps, but I do not think the absence of it necessarily deems this article invalid on such grounds. Ash.tahno (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Apple discloses its suppliers". The Washington Post. 2012-01-13. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2026-04-12.
  2. ^ Wingfield, Nick; Duhigg, Charles (2012-01-13). "Apple Lists Its Suppliers for 1st Time". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-04-12.
  3. ^ "Apple publishes supplier details for the first time". BBC News. 2012-01-16. Retrieved 2026-04-12.
  4. ^ "Apple Discloses Suppliers For The First Time - CBS San Francisco". www.cbsnews.com. 2012-01-13. Retrieved 2026-04-12.
  5. ^ Wagstaff, Keith (2012-01-13). "Apple Reveals List of Suppliers for the First Time". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2026-04-12.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus to delete, but relisting to give more time to discuss Agnieszka653 merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mathrubhumi Yearbook

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

No significant coverage of this publication in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Found sales, directory listings, and mentions, but no in-depth content. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Poliavich

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

Notability not established for an article. The subject and her partner - Uri Poliavich are co-founder of an organisation known as Yael Foundation and the sources are all about the foundation and her partner. The sources are tricky and complex because this article's subject shares same last name with her partner and the name of the organisation is the first name of the subject of this article. A quick read through the sources would appear to be about the subject of this article but they are all about her partner with trivial mentions and the organisation they co-founded. Santa Saana (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty/Handsome

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

Non-notable unaired TV pilot; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. All references are mentions of project in profiles about creator Ryan Murphy. This pilot is a one-sentence mention on his page/filmography at best. Wikipedical (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Kaveney, Roz (2011). "Ryan Murphy and nip/tuck: the diminishing returns of misanthropy". In Kaveney, Roz; Stoy, Jennifer (eds.). Nip/Tuck: Television That Gets Under Your Skin. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 11–13. ISBN 978-1-84511-862-4. Retrieved 2026-04-26 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on pages 11–12: "Pretty Handsome is the lost Murphy project, a pilot for a show that FX declined to commission, preferring to make him fill out his contract with more episodes of Nip/Tuck; given the weakness of the later seasons of that show, it is perhaps a shame that FX did not take the chance, as Murphy was trying to break new ground even for cable television once again. Pretty Handsome was to be a five-year arc about the transition of Bob (Joseph Fiennes), a New England gynaecologist, and the effect of Bob’s becoming a woman on a loving but dysfunctional family. Treating a trans man, with a trans woman partner, for ovarian cancer forces Bob to face personal crisis and cease to be in denial – ‘waiting too long’ becomes a phrase that applies both to the patient and to Bob, as does the episode’s other catchphrase ‘Nature, at its best, is complicated.’ Even in the pilot episode, we get other crises – Bob’s wife Elizabeth (Carrie-Ann Moss) is inchoately aware of something wrong with her marriage, finds herself flirting with her older son’s friend, and is seriously drawn to her husband when Bob crossdresses at Halloween. Scotch (Robert Wagner), Bob’s father, is planning to leave his snobbish Republican wife Bunny (Blythe Danner) for his African-American receptionist. The younger son Oliver goes on an internet date with what he expects to be a rather older girl and is in fact a male sexual predator; the older son, Patrick, delivers his girlfriend’s child – they have hidden the pregnancy – at the climax of the episode. This would have been a show about secrets and lies and the consequences of making them manifest – about the inexorable revenge of the repressed – a theme that occurs regularly in Murphy’s work; it is a shame we will never see more of it."

      The book notes on pages 12–13: "Another charge against Murphy is that Pretty Handsome was originally to be called 4 oz (from the average weight of a penis) and this is held to be offensive, namely to see trans women in terms of what they have dispensed with. In the context of the pilot, it is clear from a speech in which trans man Mario explains why he has not opted for a phalloplasty that 4 oz refers to masculinity in general – and if Murphy is to be held accountable for a title about which he had second thoughts, what hope is there for any of us? ... and Pretty Handsome makes telling use of The Dresden Dolls’s ‘Sex Changes’ and Queen’s ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’. "

    2. Stiffler, Dee (2008-07-07). "Early Fall '08 Previews". Gapers Block. NewsBank 14FADCAB37AC8C58.

      The review notes: "Nip/Tuck showrunner Ryan Murphy creates yet another outwardly happy family seething with secrets, betrayal and doubt. Gynecologist Joseph Fiennes and his decorator wife, Carrie-Anne Moss, have two well-adjusted sons and a solid marriage. Or do they?! The older son hides his lower-class girlfriend's pregnancy. The younger son is a socially inept genius who makes dates with strangers online. Lonely Mom briefly considers a tryst with her teenager's smarmy best friend. Oh, and Dad wears women's underwear and dreams of becoming a woman. Dad's father is having an affair and... well, you get the gist. I confess the acting is top notch, and I had a bit of a chuckle seeing William Shakespeare and Trinity from The Matrix traipsing about in tennis whites. But I had enough of Murphy's brand of storytelling in Nip/Tuck when he took complex and flawed characters and turned them into unwatchable pricks (no pun intended). And the thought of transgender storylines played as a freak show doesn't do much for me either. Note: The original title was 4 oz., the average weight of a penis. ... WATCH THIS IF: You enjoy over-the-top "shocking" plots about "unusual" people."

    3. "Situation isn't 'Pretty' for Ryan Murphy pilot". The Tribune. Zap2it. 2008-07-10. NewsBank 121D0E07D6549550. Retrieved 2026-04-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""Pretty/Handsome" seemed to have all the required elements for a buzz-worthy pilot: Respected creator (Ryan Murphy), well-known star (Joseph Fiennes) and provocative premise (man decides to undergo a sex change). None of those things, however, have been able to save it. The show appears to be dead after failing to find a TV home, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "Pretty/Handsome" was initially set up at FX, where Murphy's "Nip/Tuck" has been a strong performer for five seasons. Fiennes ("Shakespeare in Love," "Running with Scissors") was set to play a married man who breaks the news to his wife and kids that he wants a sex change. The cast also included Carrie-Anne Moss, Blythe Dan-ner and Robert Wagner. Murphy wrote the script with fellow "Nip/Tuck" scribe Brad Falchuk and also directed the pilot. Brad Pitt was an executive producer through his company, Plan B Entertainment. FX, however, decided to pass on the pilot in the spring, the HR says. Producer 20th Century Fox tried to sell the show elsewhere, but those efforts have come up empty."

    4. Andreeva, Nellie (2008-07-07). "'Pretty/Handsome' can't find a home". The Hollywood Reporter. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2026-04-26. Retrieved 2026-04-26.

      The article notes: "It’s the end of the road for Ryan Murphy’s transsexual drama “Pretty/Handsome.” The controversial project, exec produced by Murphy, Brad Pitt and Dede Gardner, was developed for FX, which ordered it to pilot starring Joseph Fiennes as a family man who decides to get a sex change."

    5. Terrace, Vincent (2018). Encyclopedia of Unaired Television Pilots, 1945–2018. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 192. ISBN 978-1-4766-7206-9. Retrieved 2026-04-26 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "1414. Pretty/Handsome. Drama (FX, 2008). Cast: Blythe Danner (Bunny), Carrie-Anne Moss (Elizabeth), Christopher Egan (Beckett), Jake Cherry (Oliver), Joseph Finnies (Bob), Robert Wagner (Scotch). Credits: Producer: Brad Falchuk, Dede Gardner, Ryan Murphy. Writer: Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk. Director: Ryan Murphy. Concept: Adult-themed pilot about a transsexual gynecologist (name not given) who tracks the progress of a married man as he transforms into a woman (it is also seen through the eyes his two teenage sons)."

    6. Weber, Brenda R.; Greven, David, eds. (2022). Ryan Murphy's Queer America. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003170358. ISBN 978-0-367-77229-1. Retrieved 2026-04-26 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Transgender studies are critical to this consideration. Both Pose and the unaired television pilot that Murphy directed and co-wrote with Brad Falchuk, Pretty/Handsome (2008), evince Murphy's interest in representing trans identities onscreen. (Pretty/Handsome, starring Joseph Fiennes as a husband who tells his wife and teenage sons that he is transgender, was not picked up as a series by the FX network. The original title of the series was 4oz., the average weight of a man's penis.)"

    7. De Morales, Lisa (2008-07-25). "'Nip/Tuck' creator gets OK for sitcom for Fox". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2026-04-26.

      The review notes: "Glee, which is now being cast, is Murphy's first TV project since FX, home of Nip/Tuck, eighty-sixed his plans for a series called Pretty Handsome, about a husband-father gynecologist who decides to undergo a sex change operation. It was originally called 4 Oz., which, Murphy explained at the time, was the weight of the human penis. That, we were told by no less an authority than Bay Harbor, Fla., sexual reassignment surgery center head Harold Reed (you may have seen him on NBC's Today show), is an exaggeration by a factor of two. Anyway, with no trace of iro-ny, the trades reported Thursday that when FX decided not to move forward with The Show Formerly Known as 4 Oz., Murphy decided to "exercise different creative muscles.'"

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

    Cunard (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give more time to reassess the newly presented sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Denton

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

Nomination 1 line stub created over 20 years ago. No indication that subject meets |GNG requirements. A search reveals trivial or routine mentions only. An invisible comment on the page suggests other possible sources but none appear to be reliable sources for the purpose of GNG. Would not be accepted today. WP:WWIN Mme Maigret (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG. JTZegers (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is far from a 1 line stub. This was an ample article until a few weeks ago when someone removed over 10K bytes of data. I think we are looking at the wrong version to determine GNG. Especially because that TNT removed all of the lists of publications. I am going to look for reviews, and this could possibly reach NAUTH. I can find references to him in books and articles, but don't know if notability can be reached as comics artists rarely are written about. Lamona (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:CREATIVE. He is described in more than one place as a comics/animation industry veteran [39][40]. Sources have been added e.g. [41][42][43][44][45], and more content could be incorporated from them.
The article could still do with improvement but dealing with its deficiencies through tags and additions per WP:ATD would be preferable to deletion (WP:TNTTNT).
As Lamona pointed out, an article with a lot of text that needed improvement was stubbified. That hampers the search for sources but doing WP:DILIGENCE on the projects listed in the full article will help. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closer should consider the history of sockpuppetry in this AFD. --tony 03:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Page semi-protected, and a few sock comments removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until some of us have time to figure out this mess. I still want to carry over some of the publications/projects from the article that was TNT'd. There are two sources that contribute to GNG - The Salt Lake Tribune and the Hollywood Reporter. I'm less clear on the others, most of which are comics-specific publications. The one entitled CBR has a well-populated editorial board so that may well be a RS. It's going to take some work to restore that parts of the previous article that can be sourced. Lamona (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he is notable enough in the comic book community to pass WP:NARTIST. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note the page looks nothing like it did when nominated, and should be reevaluated if you've based your argument on its previous state. Kudos to Lamona for the investigative work.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject of this article meets GNG. This came up at the Teahouse awhile back, so naturally someone decided to cut it back to practically nothing. Looks good now. MediaKyle (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

King of Wales

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

I propose merging to Prince of Wales because the title is only accorded to two figures in the whole of Welsh history, as a forerunner to that of Prince of Wales. See Insley, Charles (2000). "From Rex Wallie to Princeps Wallie: Charters and State Formation in Thirteenth Century Wales". In Maddicott, John; Palliser, David (eds.). The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell. Bloomsbury. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-8264-4349-6. Tipcake (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Dgp4004 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Bad choice of target. Welsh princes redirects to List of rulers in Wales. Merging isn't necessary in any case. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination was targeting Prince of Wales, not Welsh princes. These are different pages. SenshiSun (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. Prince of Wales is a title traditionally given to the male heir apparent to the English, and later, the British throne. Why would burying the topic of this article there be a good idea? It might make sense if there really were a page on Welsh princes or rulership in medieval Wales, but there isn't. That title is just a redirect and that is the kind of prince of Wales we're interested in when we talk of two figures in the whole of Welsh history. That was my point. Srnec (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument in the paper I cited is that ‘princeps Wallie’ was a development from the title of ‘Rex Wallie’ and was supposed to actually supersede it as all manner of petty ruler in Wales called themselves Rex, but princeps was unique and was thought to be superior to Rex because of this. Tipcake (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you review the previous deletion discussion? The consensus that emerged there was that what we really needed was a Titles in medieval Wales page, since there is an interesting subject around why Wales had princes and not kings. I agree with Srnec that Prince of Wales is the wrong target, as we have long established that that page is primarily about the sons of the English monarch. List of rulers in Wales is a list article, so something of an Easter Egg as a target. But no one has written the Titles in medieval Wales page, so it remains unavailable as a merge target. This page could be moved and repurposed, but unless we want to have another go at deleting it or discuss alternative targets, I think AfD is the wrong venue (albeit it is now the correct venue for merge discussions). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wales did have kings, though. You find brenin in Welsh-language poetry for 13th century figures, including lesser descendants of Rhys ap Gruffudd, to say nothing of the use of rex in 12th century Latin sources, even from England, to describe Welsh rulers. The only ‘princes’ in Wales in contemporary sources are Rhys ap Gruffudd, Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Dafydd ap Llywelyn, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and Dafydd ap Gruffudd, who all appear to have adopted the title to distinguish themselves from the plurality of reges in Wales; furthermore, all of these but Llywelyn ab Iorwerth called themselves ‘princeps Wallie’. ‘King of Wales’ is a predecessor to ‘Prince of Wales’, as outlined in the paper above. I don’t think a ‘titles of medieval Wales’ page would be very helpful because there’s many dozens of titles in the bardic poetry which don’t really mean much different from one another. The only ones you find in Latin sources are princeps, rex, dominus, and baron; or their Welsh translations. Tipcake (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There were kings of Welsh kingdoms for a while, yes. But these, it seems, were ridiculed for their small territories, and Turvey, for instance, notes how chroniclers applied the Latin diminutive form as a kind of mockery. Not rex but regulus. Increasingly only the greatest of them were called king, and then only on their death. Even, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, the only man with a real claim to be King of Wales, was only referred to in such a way on his death. Turvey is probably right about why the rulers took the name princeps instead of rex, but he is not unchallenged. There is more to say there, especially an argument (I forget who made it first) that princeps was chosen because it might hark back to Roman usage. In any case, I do not oppose the suggestion below of a merge or redirect to Gruffudd ap Llywelyn#Ruler of all Wales (1055–1063) with disambiguation to Owain Gwynedd. Only Gruffudd ap Llywelyn was ever king of the polity of Wales. If someone were searching this specific title, that is who they most probably wish to read about. I do think the page about Welsh titles would be useful and sustained by the available histories. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Madog ap Maredudd and Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd referred to themselves as reges too in charters, and Maredudd ap Gruffudd is a brenin in the Brut y Tywysogion. Only the latter is posthumous. Turvey did not create the line of argument claiming that princeps was supposed to be more important than rex, that would be J. Beverley Smith, elaborated upon by Charles Insley, then repeated by Turvey. I cannot say that I have ever read any opposition to the idea...
    English chroniclers also use rex to refer to 12th century Welsh lords, not only regulus; see J. Beverley Smith, 'Treftadaeth Deheubarth', in Yr Arglwydd Rhys, p. 34. If Turvey says regulus is 'mockery' I fear that might be a bit of a stretch on his part... Tipcake (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Increasingly only the greatest of them... The word "increasingly" clearly acknowledges the lack of universality. I also didn't say Turvey orginated that line. I know I read it in J. Beverley Smith, but I am not sure that was where it originated. What Turvey actually says is:

    This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely

    • Turvey, R. (2002) The Welsh Princes: The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1283 Routledge.
    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    He says "this practice had ceased completely and the title of king is henceforth only to be found in the texts of the Welsh laws, or at least in those copies that have survived." Hmm... I'm afraid he's flat-out wrong there. Brenin is used still pretty commonly in 13th-century bardic poetry, as I've said. And furthermore in my copy of his book, this statement has no citations to support it. In any case, this is getting pretty far removed from the original topic, which is about "King of Wales", which he's not speaking about in that instance. The papers I referenced by J. Beverley Smith and Insley are the important documents here. Tipcake (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge to Prince of Wales. That moves a problematic title out of the way, but doesn't take the reader to information they are likely to be seeking. As above, I'd support a rename and repurposing as per the last discussion. I might support a merge to another target, but cannot think what we have that would be appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge; the topics are sufficiently distinct that a merge would only confuse readers. If notability was really a concern, then a better target would be Gruffudd ap Llywelyn#Ruler of all Wales (1055–1063), where disambiguation could be added to mention the tenuous claim of Owain Gwynedd. Klbrain (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to Prince of Wales. "King of Wales" is an article about a hypothetical title that - approximately - never existed in reality. A suitable merge to Prince of Wales would leave the information intact without making unhistorical claims. I agree with Tipcake that "Titles in mediaeval Wales" would be a deeply problematic article of limited use. (Though if anyone wants to write one, it's not impossible, go ahead.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diphu Law College

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

The Law college doesn't pass General notability to clear WP:NSCHOOL. SatnaamIN (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Securities

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

This article should be merged with Security (finance) because the redirect Investment Securities links to that page. The article seems to be titled with the incorrect capitalisation at present so I wanted to correct that but a merge instead of a move would be much better so that more information can be included in the former article. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 73 in Virginia

[edit]
Interstate 73 in Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose draftifying because of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. I-73 doesnt exist anymore in VA due to old EIS. Bryce M (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Against - We have several articles where proposed routes were discontinued, this would be no different. The article also has considerable information and sources provided, just needs to be better updated to reflect the current trend, not drafted/deleted. --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may not have happened but we have documentation it was planned and it can always come back, and placing an 18 year-old article in draftspace is not any result we should encourage. If anything, the content should be merged into Interstate 73 itself, but that's a bit too much to sort through on this nomination. Nathannah • 📮 23:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Model specification (artificial intelligence)

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

Most likely violates WP:NEWLLM. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating for the same reasons:

Missionary linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United States export controls on AI chips and semiconductors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AI Action Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dakshin Char Kalibari Masjid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Interim Measures for the Management of Anthropomorphic AI Interactive Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
California Assembly Bill 2013 (2024) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

GrinningIodize (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

*Also Delete all for WP:NEWLLM. Is there a way to warn the editor to stop making these pages? Ismeiri (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all + some salt per Ismeiri TheAFDGuy (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Strike probably sock !vote. Toadspike [Talk] 20:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones should be salted? GrinningIodize (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike Why do you suspect that @TheAFDGuy is a sock? The editor interaction analyzer shows that their only common interaction with @Ismeiri is on this discussion, and there was a five-hour difference. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops replied to the wrong post. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GrinningIodize The username; the rapid-fire, low-effort, and (like here) nonsensical AfD !votes; and their responses on their talk page. I think it's likely this is BCD. Toadspike [Talk] 13:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know that? BCD has dozens of (dead, presumably) socks that could have been involved. GrinningIodize (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the activity analyzer shows no connection between BCD's latest socks and @TheAFDGuy. GrinningIodize (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've reformatted the nomination per WP:BUNDLE to allow for script handling. Please note there are 8 pages nominated here. If you are only addressing some of them, please make that clear in your !vote.
With the LLM authorship issue presumably addressed, at least for some of the nominated pages, arguments can now be based on subject merit.
Kudos to SuperPianoMan9167 for restoring the AfD notice tags.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Speedily deleted per WP:G7 Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alphax College

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

No reliable secondary sources, seems to fail WP:NORG Mariamnei (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Academic Window

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

This page is a coatrack for company that doesn't reach WP:NCORP; the page is framed as an academic concept, but the sources are undue synthesis. 'Academic Window' isn't the focus of any of the independent reliable source; the only ones that have it as the primary focus are the company site itself (at site https://www.academicwindow.com/) and one advertorial or press release (https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/149245/Academic-Window-Provides-a-School-Counseling-Platform-to-Enhance-the-Social-Emotional-and-Behavioral-States-of-Students). Klbrain (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce M (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Price, North Carolina

[edit]

:Price, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPLACE Bryce M (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Tiroteo (Daniela Lalita song)

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

Seems to fail WP:NSONG. Mariamnei (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Riihimäki sub-region

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

I propose merging to Kanta-Häme, as this represents a relatively minor and short-lived administrative structure. This AfD is a test case for a broader merge of sub-regions into their parent regions. Historically, sub-regions functioned as formal administrative entities in 1994–2014, primarily to facilitate inter-municipal cooperation. Today, their role is mostly limited to statistical classification, and they are used in regional news categorization.

Most of the articles about the sub-regions are badly sourced, both here and in fiwiki, and finding additional sources is difficult. All the information here is already present at Kanta-Häme#Sub-regions. The map cannot be included at the target page, but perhaps the regional borders could be added to the {{Location map+}} instead? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Meltdown (film)

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

I propose draftifying because it fails to meet WP:NFILM. Page was moved to mainspace by an account of new user 15 days old, Yeetfeetgrace. The creator is 4hgoat. Maybe socks or canvassing. The draft was declined as the film has not released or premiered yet and no multiple critical reviews exist yet. The creator claims that the film won an award at Cannes but nothing in source to show except that it is one of the many films listed to be shown at Cannes under category Un Certain Regard. I would also recommend a move lock if draftified. RangersRus (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: i can agree it was probably a work sockpuppetry, but like all films selected for Cannes, due to premiere in less than one month, articles are still being created and constructed following WP:NFF. Martineden83 (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Creation and construct is not an issue here but should not be in mainspace if the film does not pass notability. It should stay in draft till significant secondary independent coverage with multiple critical reviews is generated. When such changes are added, if any found, the draft can be accepted. I agree with DandelionAndBurdock that its WP:TOOSOON. RangersRus (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again WP:NFF, multiple upcoming productions have their pages moved from drafts to mainspace way too early before their releases, thus before "multiple critical reviews" can be generated.
Per WP:TOOSOON: "an upcoming film can be considered too soon if filming has not yet started, even if reliable sources have significantly covered the film's development".
That's not the case at all. Martineden83 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Analysis.
    • Source 1 by Festival de Cannes, just has an entry.
    • Source 2 by Deadline Hollywood, article about Losange Films Unveils Teaser. Trivial and routine.
    • Source 3 by Les Films du Losange, the distribution company, non-independent and just trivial and routine article, synopsis.
    • Source 4 by variety, routine and trivial, talks more about the director, and brief synopsis on the film.
    • Source 5 by Festival de Cannes, just an entry.

As it can be seen these are not the kind of sources that establish the film to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This film was selected for Un Certain Regard. The thing here is that this is an extremely, extremely selective part of Cannes and historically at AfD, screening at the UCR competition was enough to pass NFILM in and of itself. It's that selective and prestigious. I don't use that last term lightly, as it's something I typically despise seeing or using at AfD because of how frequently it's misused. But the term fits and is one of the few examples where the term is accurate.
The only thing that gives me some pause is that the festival hasn't actually occurred yet. Going back to the "historically, this was enough" part, the catch there is that those films actually screened. However the wording at NFILM just says nomination (in regards to the Cannes film festival) so I suppose it would still be enough here. If it had screened this would be a hard keep, but since it hasn't I suppose it's more of a weak keep for me. I honestly had fully expected to argue for this to go to the draftspace, especially as sockpuppetry was involved, but then I saw Un Certain Regard and that changed things. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that gives me some pause is that the festival hasn't actually occurred yet. The AFD is for draftying, hoping that when premiere occurs, significant coverage will be established with critical reviews and then it probably would be ready to be moved to mainspace by AFC reviewer. RangersRus (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, however the crux of my keep argument is this:
In 99.9% of situations award nominations are not enough to establish notability as most awards either aren't notable at all or they're not notable enough for a nomination to be considered major. However that doesn't mean that any and all award nominations are unusable. There are some institutions that are so overwhelmingly notable and the final award ballot so incredibly selective that just receiving a nomination is enough to establish notability.
Cannes is an extremely notable film festival. It's one of the "Big Five", meaning that it's one of the top film festivals in the world. For some, it's THE film festival. Their awards are considered to be extremely major, on par with an Oscar. Now, not just anyone can get nominated for this award. It's not like you get nominated just for screening at Cannes. You must be nominated for these awards and they're very selective. It may seem like they have very many, but it's really not. No one is going to be able to just roll up and show their film as part of this selection, nor will anyone outside of this selection win the ultimate award.
So here's the thing. Un Certain Regard is an extremely selective, highly prestigious award. They only allow a certain number of films to screen and just getting on the list for this is considered to be a super high honor. I do not use that lightly and for context, I am one of those people who will regularly say that an award nomination is garbage and can't count towards notability. However Un Certain Regard is one of those extremely rare exceptions to the norm.
NFILM actually has a section that specifically covers nominations for highly selective and prestigious awards at overwhelmingly notable film festivals. They use the TIFF Platform Prize as an example of a film festival award nomination that is enough to establish notability. When discussing this award they specifically use the Cannes film festival's juried awards (of which Un Certain Regard is one) as a comparative "nominations are notable" thing because just getting selected is that major.
The only reason I hesitate is because it hasn't screened yet however ultimately it's probably not a reason to hesitate. Even if something were to happen and Cannes weren't to happen, the film were to get yanked, or some other highly unlikely thing were to happen, the film was still nominated and that's enough to make it notable. I can't overstate how notable Un Certain Regard is in this situation. It's not a random obscure award. The New York Times has written several articles about the award, how prestigious it is, and in one talk about how certain critics view it (and the films) as more interesting than the ones in competition for the main award, the Palme d'Or. Variety calls it the second most prestigious competition at Cannes. Note that they're not saying that the award is most prestigious, rather that the competition itself is prestigious. Big difference there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think by now we've come to the consensus to keep the article up. May we delete the deletion request? Yeetfeetgrace (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's barely been open for 48 hours so some more opinions would be appreciated. Also requests don't get deleted. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 11:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus yet as its too early for opinions. Please do not attempt to delete the AFD. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Main University Road

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

Unsourced, appears to fail WP:NGEO (the only independent source I found was this) Mariamnei (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2-Methyl-4H-pyrido(1,2-a)pyrimidin-4-one

[edit]
2-Methyl-4H-pyrido(1,2-a)pyrimidin-4-one (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:AISIGNS and contains at least one factual error: Antaki (1958), doi:10.1021/ja01545a041, does not cover 2-substituted 4H-pyrido[1,2-a]-pyrimidines, such as this compound. Given the article was only approved at AfC yesterday, I would not be opposed to draftification pending cleanup. Likewise for a redirect to 4H-Pyrido(1,2-a)pyrimidin-4-one (the parent compound of the class), which also appears to be substantially LLM-written but may be easier to salvage. Preimage (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim that Antaki (1958) covers 2-substituted derivatives. Reference [2] is cited specifically for the 1958 extension to 3-substituted derivatives and for UV spectroscopic characterisation of the ring system. The structural assignment of the 2-methyl compound is attributed to Antaki and Petrow (1951), Reference [1], which is the correct citation. The stated factual error does not appear in the article as written. — CharlesHAntaki (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is your claim that the 1958 paper covers 3-substituted derivatives of 2-methyl-4H-pyrido[1,2-a]pyrimidin-4-one? Because it doesn't. Preimage (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the article misuses its only good source, then we can't have it anyway. But (1) the article doesn't make a good case for this chemical being notable (see Wikipedia:Notability_(chemicals) for a not-yet-accepted but generally sensible definition of notability for chemicals). Is this specific chemical reviewed reasonably thoroughly in secondary or tertiary literature (more than a brief mention in a mention-everything source)? Or is this specific chemical a big feature of multiple primary sources, not just a couple of ancient patents? (2) the article currently begins with a big misunderstanding: "The correct structure of 2-methyl-4H-pyrido[1,2-a]pyrimidin-4-one was established by Antaki and Petrow in 1951". No, that's not how it works. The systematic name describes exactly that structure; the structure corresponding to a systematic name isn't something that is established by experiment, it's a logical consequence of the name, which is an unambiguous description of structure, a verbal version of drawing the molecule. What the article means to say is that several people prior to 1951 made something else but misidentified what they made, and claimed to have made the subject of the current article although they had not. Elemimele (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Girls' College, Imphal

[edit]
Ideal Girls' College, Imphal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hill College, Tadubi

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biramangol College

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rayburn College

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Also reads like a brochure Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency College, Motbung

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university with only few coverage on routine events. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shana Muldoon Zappa

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

Notable only for who she is related to. No evidence of notability in her own right. WP:NOTINHERITED WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Carless

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

I don't think this meet WP:N. The only coverage I can find for him is him leaving GDC, him founding a company (both of which are run-of-the-mill routine coverage), and a more in-depth source about his company, but none of them can really be considered as WP:SIGCOV about him as a person. OceanHok (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I found: ProQuest, O'Reilly, Pocket Gamer. Also the GI.biz feature looks significant as Carless appears to be the proprietor of GameDiscoverCo. IgelRM (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say Pocket Gamer or O'Reilly can be counted as SIGCOV though. Not sure about the ProQuest since it is locked behind paywall. GIBiz covers mostly his site but not him as a person. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not used to the ways of English wikipedia community, but as for the french one, I created an article about this person. You probably can take a look and find some additional sources there, too: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Carless Elanis42 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Related discussions: 2008-12 Elasto Mania (closed as ✓ keep)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Hamrin ambush

[edit]
2014 Hamrin ambush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT. Reaction to the Musab bin Umair mosque massacre, where this event is already covered. No need for a separate page per WP:NOPAGE. Longhornsg (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a separate page just like how 2004 Fallujah ambush led to First Battle of Fallujah. Covers a whole separate event. Ali aj809 (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Waiheʻe River

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

Seems to be a WP:LLMNEW as indicated by nonsense dates in the code " Retrieved November 17, 2019" for a page created in 2026 and the page being added to non-existent categories. If the topic is deemed notable it needs to be rewritten by a human. JMWt (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LLM-stuff aside, it fails WP:NGEO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New War

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND as well as WP:GNG. I was unable to find any significant coverage online to establish the band's notability either as Brand New War or as the God Awfuls. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 19:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since folks are kind of split let's just see if we can get some more discussion toward consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Electorate opinion polling and projections for the next Australian federal election

[edit]
Electorate opinion polling and projections for the next Australian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much of this polling information is already captured in Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election. Polls are not normally done at the electorate level. You can see for the first 3 seats from the ACT are all the same sample of 8,484 people. There is hardly any variation across the 3 electorates, it's just a derived projection and not factual. The page relies very heavily on the DemosAU poll, where as Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election draws from a much wider range of polls. Teraplane (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Teraplane (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – Nominator does not seem to understand the article's scope or what an MRP is. No rationale for deletion given. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Rather rude. MRP is obviously still an extrapolation to individual seats, however you choose to characterise it. Grahame (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not rude. The nomination fundamentally misunderstands what the article covers. This AfD is an ineffective use of editors' time and should not have been initiated. If there is a valid deletion reason somewhere then I'm happy to engage with that. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The information in this article is not the same as that in Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election, it would be highly inappropriate to delete it because that article already exists. There are far fewer pollsters that conduct MRPs or poll individual seats than there are pollsters who conduct regular polling, so I don't see why you expect there so be a similar range of polls on this page. At this point in the election cycle DemosAU is to be the only firm I'm aware of to have published any nation-wide MRPs; if you've come across any others you're welcome to add them. If you have an issue with the inclusion of MRPs in general, then that's a topic that you should be discussing on the talk page instead of here. Crowsauces (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Crowsauces (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Keep. I do not seem to understand the nom's rationale. Polls are done at the electorate level, and the amount of such polls together with the number of polls and article size of Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election already recommends a WP:SPINOFF being established, which this article is. Not sure what the nom thinks that a "normal" amount of polls would be, but the article presently shows enough information at this point of time to justify the article, and it is inevitable that more polls will come out as the election approaches. "There is hardly any variation across electorates" does not seem to be as a valid reason either to delete an article. Impru20talk 15:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes some very few poll are done at electorate level. But suggest you look at referencves 3 and 4, "The MRP model generated primary vote share estimates for all 150 House of Representative electorates." Clearly the DemosAU polling is not done at the electorate level. My contention is that polling is only accurate (actual data) at state and federal level. Projecting these figures down to the electorate level create many tables of estimates and too much repitition. This was pointed out in the Talk section for the page back in March, "Poor signal to noise ratio". With this DemosAU survey referenced 150 times, it's clear that a single source is too limited. It is also a lot of work to extract the electorste level data, so they the article could become outdated with future DemosAU polls. I simply suggest that Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election is a more statistically valid and succint represention of voter intention for ther next election. It is much better referenced, covering all the polls, not just a single poll that this page uses. Teraplane (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The poor signal to noise ratio talk page section you mention has nothing to do with what you're talking about. It was from before the first DemosAU MRP, and the page had the electorate boxes just with their 2025 results, with only one seat having any polling done at that point. That discussion also was from last August, the discussion in March was about by-elections. Please properly look at what you're talking about if you're going to make supposedly serious suggestions such as this. Crowsauces (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — the article come 2028 will be extremely helpful. To record everything contemporarily is simply wiser, and furthermore allows people to grasp electorate opinion polling currently rather than reflectively. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 03:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Action in Grocka (1942)

[edit]
Action in Grocka (1942) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Serbian Gestapo because this is a minor policing-type event without WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-driven development

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

Only cited to blogs. Fails WP:GNG, contested PROD. Only WP:RS that doesn't fail WP:SIGCOV I could find was a paywalled O'Reilly video.

On the talk page, this source was found:

Ousterhout, John (July 2021). A Philosophy Of Software Design (Second Edition (v2.0) ed.). Palo Alto, CA.: Yaknyam Press. pp. Chapter 15. ISBN 978-1-7321022-2-4.

Unfortunately even with those two sources, it still fails WP:GNG. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 06:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why? Exactly, which point is violated in your opinion?
I think that papers by John Ousterhout from Stanford University are a very reliable source of information. --Mi.Fe (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What paper? Please provide a link. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 01:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Astron SoftCard

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

Does not cite WP:RS; first citation is an open wiki and second citation is a non-independent source. Fails WP:GNG, could not find sufficient WP:SIGCOV WP:RS which are WP:SEC and WP:IS. Checking for WP:NPRODUCT, this fails because there is no article about Electronic Software or any of its products and it does not have any coverage in RS. ozmoozmo@enwiki$t.c 05:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The MSX Wiki contains screenshots from both Japanese and UK magazines, along with period advertising material, have linked one a copy of one of the sourced Magazines, that's available on the Internet Archive. So that should solve the WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:SEC. The page is an incomplete stub, for a redundant media, rather than a single product, so worthy of a paragraph or two, in not a page of its own. A.j.roberts (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy Wellington

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

Subject is an influencer who does not appear to meet the Notability (people) criteria. The article is written in a promotional tone and appears to be a COI/paid creation, as evidenced by celebratory promotional graphics shared on the subject's social media. External sources provided are non-independent or lack significant depth. EmmChuKC (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale of other votes Wisenerd (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no WP:SIGCOV and by my source assessment:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Bylined piece, not affiliated with subject. Per WP:TABLOID No Focus is on a tv show she took part in, half of it is about her. ✘ No
Yes Bylined piece, website has clear editorial policy. No Per WP:DISTRACTIFY Yes Whole article is about her. ✘ No
No Largely based on an interview Yes Per WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE No Only talks about a viral video ✘ No
No Primary source Yes We better hope the Federal Trade Commision is reliable Yes Document is about an event she took part in. ✘ No
No Largely based on an interview Yes Long-standing magazine No Only talks about a viral video ✘ No
Yes Not affiliated with her, bylined Yes Per WP:RSPDEADLINE No Passing mention as tv show participant. ✘ 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}}.

More eyes on the article in the meantime would be nice, the subject posted on Instagram "Welcome me to Wikipedia" with a link to this article and it's going viral. There's already been a low level of disruption judging by the history. SecretSpectre (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep: Was the subject of a lawsuit by the FTC for alleged fraud/selling a consumer product [47], [48] that helps notability. Probably just enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue coverage about a "viral video" is notable; it is how people gain celebrity status these days. I don't necessarily think that makes them worse off, but "famous for being famous" is a thing since Paris Hilton came along. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you mean but Paris Hilton is an odd example to use here. Paris Hilton grew up as a wealthy socialite from a famous family and became very successful through her connections and media coverage. The subject of this article doesn't seem to have enjoyed any privileges growing up, however high powered connections are not needed to go viral, which is why most who find "fame" that way find it does not last and will not have a career that could be considered notable. Both articles covering the video are interviews, so I agree with @SecretSpectre's assessment that they don't count towards WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance of the Soul: Flowers and Harmonics

[edit]
Resonance of the Soul: Flowers and Harmonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK, has some awards but they're paid for. For example Literary Titan is for self-published authors, Readers' Favorite is just a pay to play website, and OnlineBookClub.org is a website where you pay for author promotion.

Article is written by AI/LLM Wikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup/Noticeboard#Resonance_of_the_Soul:_Flowers_and_Harmonics Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Per WP:NBOOK, this collection meets one and/or more of the criteria listed under that provision.

1.The work has "been the subject of two or more non trivial published works." The following are some independent sources:

(a) MSN and Monitor. The latter is one of two largest newspapers in Uganda."MSN". "Daily Monitor".

(b) American Osteopathic Association publication, the DO "The DO".

(c) Muwadu, an independent literary African platform "Muwadu".

(d) Fatuma’s Voice, an independent literary African platform "Fatuma's Voice".

2. The book was awarded the Independent Press award, 2026 Distinguished Favorite "IPA". and Literary Titan Gold Book award I believe WP:NBOOK does not exclude works that were awarded to self published work, where the standard is independent coverage.

3. “The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution” to a country’s cultural literature resulting in creation of an award that was established by a national literary institution. "FV". "Nashua". "AOA, The DO".

Regarding the article being written by AI/LLM, Grammarly was used. The article can be re-written to meet Wikipedia requirements. I will revise it accordingly.

MRSawesome33 (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: MRSawesome33 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  1. MSN is a reprint of the article from the Daily Monitor. For the Daily Monitor I can't find an editorial policy or information about the site other than some advertising info. The author Philip Matogo advertising himself as a digital strategist. See the entry for Fatumas Voice below.
  2. The DO accepts short articles for online publication, author is not on the normal staff and is instead a freelancer according the Muckrack.
  3. Muwadu does not have an editorial process or board that reviews it's content. It's a literary platform but not an organized news sources or journal.
  4. Literary Titan has a nice checkout section to buy your award. IPA gave that award to everyone who applied for it. I don't think WP:NBOOK would count awards like this.
  5. Fatumas Voice is authored by the same person who wrote the article for the Daily Monitor (Philip Matogo) and advertises himself with "I develop and manage clients' digital strategy to improve their web presence and achieve their digital marketing goals as well as forge bonds of cooperation with existing and potential clients.". The article from Ink Link is authored by Ivan Edwards so that wouldn't count as an independent source.
Dr vulpes (Talk) 16:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft pen protocol

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

No sources in the article specifically mention the Microsoft pen protocol. I could not find any reliable sources specifically mentioning it (sources only mention Microsoft's purchase of N-trig). Fails WP:GNG. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 08:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 04:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus loves white children

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

Extremely local event that received local coverage. All local coverage, fails WP:NEVENT. Article's description of what this even is is incoherent, it flips from time period to time period with no explanation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extremely local non-movement created by a single purpose account. SenshiSun (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree
Miiversal (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kameshvara

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

This article on a form of Shiva in Hinduism was recently converted from a redirect to Shiva#Iconographic forms, which currently does not mention the target. The current lead image is certainly AI-generated (Commons DR), and it seems likely that most or all of the new text is AI-generated as well. Much of the text is sourced to self-published religious ebooks, some of which seem more likely to represent personal beliefs or interpretations than generally accepted doctrines.

No objection if someone wants to write a properly sourced, human-authored article on this topic, but this is a mess. Omphalographer (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer Hello this is not AI generated text. It was translated from other versions of wikipedia. The image is AI but the image also accurate according to the scriptures. Arunsharma1028 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which language edition was this translated from? It's clearly not hi:कामेश्वर, given how short that is. si:කාමේශ්වර looks more likely, but that does not contain anything resembling the "In the traditions of Shaktism" section of this article. Omphalographer (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
French one too Arunsharma1028 (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Padmanava College of Engineering, Rourkela

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Institute of Technology

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. most sources on this page are from the institution itself Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Balasore College of Engineering and Technology

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

Fails WP:NSOURCE and WP:GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alur, Bellary

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

This has 2 references and 1 sentence. There is nothing about the place at all. In addition this doesn't meet notability requirements. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 01:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, it also doesn't help one of the citations is a tagged a permanent dead link. Gavetheman555 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything. SenshiSun (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Cane Children

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

I do not think this single meets WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, there are absolutely zero reviews and coverage in general dedicated to this single. Parts of the article rely on original research which Wikipedia should not contain, considering this was released almost 24 years ago, it's unlikely there will be future sources that will allow the article to be expanded. It consists of only two notes and "sources" that are turned into External links, if this article was to be kept, it needs a heavily amount of reconstructing/expansion (somehow). Gavetheman555 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Bazzoni

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTCRIT. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Correct. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2026_April_28&oldid=1351591588"