Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

if page isn't updating.

Guide to deletion

Dingo ate my baby

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dingo ate my baby
• Articles for deletion/Dingo ate my baby (2nd nomination)

Dingo ate my baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting or possibly merging to Death of Azaria Chamberlain. Another potential target is Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton. This article is a stub that relies on two sources that cover the event broadly. There is no demonstration of SIGCOV of the general pop culture phenomenon nor that this is best covered as standalone article. The opening paragraph contributes ≈‍70% of the prose and establishes the context by summarizing and linking to Death of Azaria Chamberlain and Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton. This is a strong indication that this is best covered in the context of the parent articles.

I see two main objections in the prior AFD. The first is that the article had recently been trimmed and some editors felt there was potential for it to be re-expanded with appropriate content. One year later and all we have seen is removal of content. The other objection was that limiting the coverage to the parent article(s) might some how encourage or permit the addition of more crufty "in popular culture" content. I don't really understand the logic but as it stands the coverage remains quite limited (appropriately, IMO). Bizarrely, Death of Azaria Chamberlain and Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton contain a bit more information about the popular phenomenology, including pointing out that the quote is often satirized and listing specific examples of American TV shows where this has occurred. Evil Angels (film) provides even more examples. Adding those details to this article would just produce a higher degree of duplication across multiple articles.

The only content that could possibly be merged is the clarification/correction about what Chamberlain actually said. This would reasonably be within the scope of Death of Azaria Chamberlain and Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton but it's not clear that the sourcing is adequate or that it needs to be included if editors at both articles have not seen fit to cover this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Crime, Popular culture, and Australia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep Very notable topic. I don't see why this isn't significant. It was widely reported and re-quoted in the press and popular culture. An editor from Mars (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Third wave of autocratization

Third wave of autocratization (edit | talk | history | 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 probably 90%+ of this article is Original Research WP:OR where the source(s) never mention the subject of this article: "third wave of autocratization" making this OR and WP:SYNTH. The topic is notable, but the current article should be rebuilt from scratch to be a quality article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose So in order to include RS in an article, each RS must explicitly say the title of the article they're being included in or else you're violating OR? This seems like an unusually strict interpretation of OR.

WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH also applies - synthesis of sources is one of the legitimate roles of Wikipedia. SYNTH is original research by synthesis rather than just any synthesis of sources at all. We're allowed to connect related ideas together if we're basing our reporting on RS and not engaging in OR by SYNTH.

I invite you to present an OR claim in the article so we can examine whether it's original research or simply undue in your view. If you have issues with content being undue, then we should discuss it on a case-by-case basis at the talk page rather than draftifying or taking down the article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I invite you to present an OR claim in the article so we can examine whether it's original research - Ok, so I picked one section AT RANDOM: "Protest policing" - you have an ENTIRE SECTION on protest policing, that you simply EXCERPTED from the Protest policing article WITH NOT ONE SOURCE tying "Protest policing" to "Third wave of autocratization" - That is one example of how this entire article is your WP:SYNTH unsupported by the sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Siamese Cambodians

Siamese Cambodians (edit | talk | history | 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 Cambodia–Thailand relations because this topic doesn't seem to be WP:NOTABLE. For a topic that is about Cambodia, the fact there are no Khmer-language sources is already questionable. But looking through these sources, some are just inscriptions which are not themselves cited, there's a random Youtube video, and what appears to be TV episodes. The entire language section is uncited and non-hyperlinked, the "famous" people section have no evidence that most of these people in question are in fact famous. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Cambodia, Ethnic groups, and Thailand. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I propose that the contents of this article do not match the Cambodia-Thai relations article. Cambodia-Thai relations is a definition of relationships between the two states while this article highlights the ethnic group living in Koh Kong.

Additionally, while I didn't put Khmer sources in, Thai sources matter since they involve a Thai ethnic group living in Cambodia which counts. Additional Khmer sources can be inserted. EditingGuy564738 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@EditingGuy564738 If the scope of the article is narrowed, given sourcing, then I'd have no issue with it as a standalone article. TansoShoshen (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. ManoiCMU (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep separate. There's too much potential info here that wouldn't be appropriate to include in the suggested target. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose merge per the reasoning raised above, and the fact that there’s been no real analysis to support the notion that the article fails to qualify under GNG. You can poke holes in a few of the sources all you want but that doesn’t then legitimate a presumption that all present sourcing is insufficient. Unfortunately I don’t read Thai, though, so this is partly based on the presumption of honesty by other editors here, but from what I can garner at least some are from academic sources, so the nom’s characterization seems inaccurate.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This is a minority that was once 25% of one of the provinces, so they are likely notable. The article is rather long and well-cited, and I see no reason to dismiss the sources present. Merging an article about minority X in country Y to an article on interstate X–Y relations makes zero sense to me. The topics are substantially different and barely overlap. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Save Our State (Australia)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Save Our State (Australia)
• Articles for deletion/Save Our State (Australia) (2nd nomination)

Save Our State (Australia) (edit | talk | history | 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 of this article does not cover enough of the information that is provided. The sourcing is also inadequate as there is only one footnote which is a primary source that is not in-depth, significant coverage is required by the general notability guideline. An editor in the previous deletion discussion claimed that sources exist on this topic, but when I search on Google for this topic, I find very little coverage that would be suitable for use in this article. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Australia. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Info - Note on soft closure: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep.

Previous discussions: 2013-05 (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I searched in Google Books, and this 2023 academic book covers the group on page 69, 2002 paper about it. I cannot preview the book from 2006 linked in the previous AfD, but see no reason to dismiss it. Also, it should be mentioned in contemporary newspapers. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Driena Sixto

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

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

No evidence of notability for this media personality. JTtheOG (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, News media, Politics, Cuba, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. This is lacking good sources; in fact there are zero secondary sources. The first three sources are interviews, the next is a pro forma legislative certificate, and the last two are her own social media accounts. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet any of the notability criteria for an entry here. She is a communication strategist, but that strategy does not work here because everything here follows strict laid down guidelines and must be adhered to. Runmastery (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Mumbai Delhi Mumbai

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mumbai Delhi Mumbai
• Articles for deletion/Mumbai Delhi Mumbai (2nd nomination)

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

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

I propose redirecting to Satish Rajwade or Mumbai-Pune-Mumbai because the film has no independent notability. No reliable film reviews. Only sources found in a WP:BEFORE were , , , and . DareshMohan (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DareshMohan (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 Canadian anti-Muslim incident

2026 Canadian anti-Muslim incident (edit | talk | history | 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. "School receives threatening email" is a WP:ROUTINE occurrence and the sourcing fails to demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED or WP:NEVENT passing coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOTNEWS website that carries every story. We do not know at this time if there is going to be widespread reactions, sustained coverage and policy shifts. Runmastery (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 Quebec Islamic threat

2026 Quebec Islamic threat (edit | talk | history | 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. A brief burst of local news coverage about an alleged threat does not demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Further, the sources don't even establish that a crime has been committed, but that it is alleged that it did. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to 2026 in the Islamic State, small event with no lasting effect. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with the nominator, no significant sustained coverage --TitCrisse (t•c) 00:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. This is simply an intelligence report, and we are not archives of such reports. Runmastery (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 Torreón school stabbing

2026 Torreón school stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication this passes WP:NEVENT. Coverage is local breaking news, and "one person dies at a school" is not so unusual as an event. Crimes happen - is this a crime that received notability proving coverage? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Schools, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Initially, I was shocked at this nomination, but this appears to fall short of notability criteria 4:

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories", and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

Are there any good merge targets here? SenshiSun (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - No evidence of notability. This is a run off the mill stabbing with 1 person unfortunately losing their life, but no evidence that this event will transcend beyond the news. Please ping me if this changes. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Sigortaladim Sigorta and Reassurance

Sigortaladim Sigorta and Reassurance (edit | talk | history | 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 sources are WP:PROMO and do not establish notability. I have suspicions that this article was created in return of an undisclosed payment as well. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 20:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 20:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NCORP failure since 2025. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Game Theorists

Game Theorists (edit | talk | history | 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 one source, which I suspect is unreliable on its own. Not independently notable from MatPat, where it previously redirected. A WP:BEFORE turned up only one news article about the formation of a workers' union (), which by itself would make the article fail WP:NCORP per WP:ONEEVENT. In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 19:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Social Blade is not reliable. Restore redirect. SenshiSun (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Redirect: Not notable enough by itself, and an unreliable source as @SenshiSun stated. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 07:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Interstate 13

Interstate 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no I-13. One of these (605) mentions this as a proposed but rejected number, with an unreliable source (maybe citogenesis?), and the other doesn't mention it at all. This previously targeted U.S. Route 17 in North Carolina because of a brief mention of an old, failed proposal (kind of obscure) for a new interstate (they wanted 13 for the number), but it never got anywhere. I don't think there's enough here to support a redirect, let alone a dab. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Disambiguations. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete per rationale of nom. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment - in looking for sourcing, I haven't found anything great (I suspect there are some old print sources in archives) but am fairly confident that the 605 is not citogenesis. I have changed the link in the second line to US 17, which does mention the proposal. See also here for previous discussion on similar topics. My gut wants to say weak keep, but I can't really justify that given neither of these proposals seems to have lasted for more than a couple weeks or received significant coverage. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Triskaidekaphobia. very specific reason why there’s no I–13. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Detroit Boat Club

Detroit Boat Club (edit | talk | history | 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 club specific coverage is only from a Detroit News history feature and a 2007 Detroit News article which are limited in depth and mainly cover the club's financial troubles. Members competing at the Olympics doesn't make the club notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). There are only three citations, one being a Google Maps link that supports nothing in text. Page is full of unsourced promotional language, for example "DBC legends are plentiful", "the greatest oarsmen in the club's history". There is a whole section about the club's current programs that is 20 years stale. There is not enough independent coverage of the club to satisfy WP:NORG SeagrassSummer (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related AfD discussions. SeagrassSummer (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG. Enough coverage found in books. Azuredivay (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

TV aerial plug

TV aerial plug (edit | talk | history | 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 to RF connector because of its short length and overlapping scope. Though there is a reference to the IEC specification for the Belling-Lee connector, no sources are cited that would make the use of RF connectors for television worthy of its own article. We could probably just make this article a section of the target.

I would perform the merge myself, but I had a feeling that it may be a bit controversial, so I decided to create an AfD nomination instead. YOSHI128K ^talk! 19:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. YOSHI128K ^talk! 19:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related AfD discussions. YOSHI128K ^talk! 19:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Belling-Lee connector. This is effectively a disambiguation page between that and F connector, but "aerial" is British English (other varieties would say "antenna"), so somebody searching for this term seems more likely to be after the former. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Ironically enough, this page was originally a redirect to the latter, created in 2015 following a somewhat-botched move. I do agree with your idea of making it a redirect. YOSHI128K ^talk! 20:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

AutoCAST

AutoCAST (edit | talk | history | 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 product, website is dead, does not meet criteria for notability Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking
• Articles for deletion/Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking (3rd nomination)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM. Before nominating this I ran source checks to see if this could be improved in some way, but no, not a SINGLE MENTION that I could find on Google. Now some could argue that the fact it charted in Japan helps it lean towards being notable, but it has been discussed before that charting does not instantly establish notability. There is really not that much than can be said about this EP, theres no background, no production, not even a release section. With that being said, this EP does not establish the significant coverage to stand on its own ground. I would vote for redirecting this, but where would it even redirect to? Gavetheman555 (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gavetheman555 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: charting is a sign it could be notable, but it's not a free pass... We need coverage. I looked in Gnewspapers, given the age of the album, this was about all I cold find . Very limited release in non-US markets, I don't think we'll find much else in American media. Maybe some JP or EU coverage, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the first nomination from 2012 ended in a redirect to Green Day discography#Live albums; that would not be a valid target in 2026, but only because its listing on that page has since been moved to Green Day discography#Extended plays (indeed, there was a bold retarget to that effect in 2022). Article content returned in 2024, paving the way for the second nomination that it outright survived; that was in part due to the assumption of "charting = notability" the current nominator is pushing back on (all of the nominations can basically be boiled down to "not enough SIGCOV"), but there were also two non-chart sources brought up by one of the "keep"s last time that neither were objected to at the time nor ever added to the article (it is best done at that time to avoid potential renomination). If nothing else, given the nominator's questions as to what any potential redirect target should be, Green Day discography#Extended plays would probably be the best alternative to deletion given that some iteration of the redirect to the discography was stable for 12 years (only being altered that one time to sync with intervening changes to the discography page itself), but I have no opinion as to whether we need to resort to that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Czech Republic, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. The album is discussed in some detail in this Real Sound article in Japanese. There could be more out there. Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Dekimasu, wouldn't this be considered WP:Primary, since the content is the Green Day A&R guy talking about it? WidgetKid ^Converse 17:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Green Day discography#Extended plays as WP:ATD. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I could find no independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. This was a regional live EP that garnered basically no coverage. Everything I found merely confirms WP:ITEXISTS. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WidgetKid ^Converse 17:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Townhouse

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

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

Short article with few references. Is this different enough from a Terraced house to warrant its own article? Seems like the word is used in several different ways different places. Maybe replace with a disambiguation page? Marcuspn (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – Townhouse is a distinct term, not just a secondary name for Terraced house. It's the standard term across much of North America for connected single-family homes. It also covers meanings that terraced housing doesn't, including the British town/city residence, which already has its own article, Townhouse (Great Britain). That article points here for the North American usage, and notes that even in Britain the two terms can carry different connotations. Buildings and architecture of New Orleans also links here for the city's "American townhouse" style. The varied usage the nomination mentions is a reason to keep this as a broad-concept article rather than a disambiguation page. Yes, the article is short and needs expansion, but that's more of a cleanup issue. Separately, updating the lead in the Terraced house article could help clarify the difference. (Side note: As an American, I had to research "terraced house" before replying.☺️) SupermarketCake (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I will argue that Terraced house is the broad-concept article, as it concerns itself only with one common broad worldwide concept (row of joined houses sharing side walls), while the Townhouse article is a brief definition of three destinct concepts for North America and the United Kingdom. A disambiguation page would fix the problem with townhouses having different meanings (defining different concepts).

  Also looking at the article, I dont see how North American town houses don't fit under the definition of "townhouse (US) is a type of medium-density housing which first started in 16th century Europe with a row of joined houses sharing side walls." in the Terraced house article lead. The Merriam-Webster definition defines it in a very similar way "a usually single-family house of two or sometimes three stories that is usually connected to a similar house by a common sidewall". If North America does has a different and common definition, a new article, similar to Townhouse (Great Britain), can be created.

  A solution for both would be making the Townhouse article an disambiguation page and moving the relevant text from the Townhouse article to the Terraced house article. For a city residence for the wealthy, a new article can be created by globalising the existing Townhouse (Great Britain) article. I would call it City residence or Townhouse (city residence). Marcuspn (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep: As an American I can confirm that townhouses are fundamentally different from terraced houses, particularly given the fact that they often border on low-density housing due to their wide propagation in the suburbs. Terraced houses are, as mentioned in the referenced article, more closely related to row houses, which are more typically found in higher density urban settings (not necessarily in the middle of a massive apartment block, more so in a city center (whether predominantly mixed-density or single family homes). Though townhomes can exist in pretty much any context, and can even stand alone, terraced houses appear to be strictly higher-density. The cultures of urban development and planning in the US and UK are radically different, thus homes of this nature should probably be discussed within that context anyway.

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Sdr. Nærå Fri- og Efterskole

Sdr. Nærå Fri- og Efterskole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Årslev#Sdr. Nærå Fri- og Efterskole because this fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield anything useful. The two other wikis didn't help. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Denmark. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Roskilde Gymnasium

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

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

I propose redirecting to Roskilde#Education and sport because this fails in WP:NSCHOOL as well as GNG. My BEFORE didn't yield anything with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability....just a few trivial mentions and directories out there. Won't mind withdrawing if someone can find useful sources. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Denmark. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Rodney County, Queensland

Rodney County, Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Lands administrative divisions of Queensland - This would be consistent with the other counties of Queensland shown on the target page. Article itself does not give any information that is specific to Rodney County, other than it contains two major towns and that information is already included in the table at Lands administrative divisions of Queensland#List of counties by district. BleachPuffin (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

CarProperty.com

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/CarProperty.com
• Articles for deletion/CarProperty.com (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/CarProperty.com (3rd nomination)

CarProperty.com (edit | talk | history | 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:ORG. The coverage in the article is routine; the founding of the company. I reviewed the sources offered in support of the article six years ago; the Chicago Tribune and NY Times and The Car Connection are interviews with the founder; Inman.com is a press release; Road and Track is very brief(if I'm viewing the whole thing, I'm not sure); HuffPo seems to have republished the Road and Track piece(though the link is dead). I'm amazed it was kept five years ago(though standards were different).

Note that the founder of the company made an edit request, which is what brought my attention to this. That edit request seems to assert notability by having notable customers or listing notable properties, but notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Websites, California, and Wyoming. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep — disclosure: I am affiliated with CarProperty.com (declared on my user page), so I will confine myself to the sourcing question and leave the decision to uninvolved editors. The concern raised is WP:ORGDEPTH, but the coverage here is not routine: it includes full feature articles specifically about this website in major independent outlets, sustained over more than 15 years:

• Chicago Tribune, "Forget the house, this site is all things garage" (Jan 30, 2009) — a feature article about the site itself
• Detroit News, "Car-storage properties drive real estate Web site" (Sept 5, 2007) — feature about the site (already cited in the article)
• The New York Times Wheels, "But How Big Is the Garage?" (Jan 26, 2010)
• Toronto Star, "When a Garage is Gold" (Jan 24, 2012) (subscription required)
• Inman News, "When a 4-car garage won't do, there's CarProperty.com" (Sept 16, 2013) — trade-press profile of the site
• Top Gear, 2020 Christmas gift guide (Dec 2020) and The Drive, Feb 13, 2023 — continuing national coverage

WP:ORGDEPTH excludes routine churn (press releases, listing announcements); these are feature stories about the service, which is the distinction that matters. The celebrity-listing coverage (Houston, Meloni) is supplementary and I am not resting notability on it. Two prior AfDs (2015, 2020) closed as Keep on substantially this source base. Where sources are weak (e.g., the press release, primary pages), the remedy is editing per WP:ATD, not deletion — a sourced rewrite has been offered on the talk page and was already partly implemented. Robert-Cross-2804 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this go by WP:NWEB rather than WP:NCORP? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  A good question, the main text(what little there is) seems to be about the company, while the lead seems to be about the website. It gets confusing when the company's purpose is to operate a website. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  The prior AfD seems to be based on NCORP so I went by that. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  If the only thing a company does is run a website and all the sources are on the website then I'd say the scope should be on a website. And if the prior AfD was wrong, well... I haven't looked at the sourcing yet so no other comment but I think NWEB would be a better metric here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Well- WP:INHERITWEB still applies, there needs to be more than the website having had notable customers. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, I just was commenting on the NCORP application. I have not evaluated the sources and so have not voted keep or delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you PARAKANYAA for raising WP:NWEB — I agree it is the right framework, since the article's subject is the website (the company existed only to operate it). Under NWEB the site has been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself": the Chicago Tribune feature (Jan 30, 2009), the Detroit News feature (Sept 5, 2007), the New York Times Wheels post (Jan 26, 2010), and the Toronto Star feature (Jan 24, 2012).

  On the "interviews with the founder" characterization: these are bylined features in which the publication describes and evaluates the site in its own voice — founder quotes appear inside independent reporting. Per WP:INTERVIEW, that kind of coverage is secondary, not primary.

  I concede the Inman wire item may be release-based and the Road & Track mention is brief, so I de-emphasize both; the case rests on the Tribune, Detroit News, NYT, and Toronto Star features, plus sustained later coverage (Top Gear 2020, The Drive 2023). The Car Connection (2009) piece cited in the first AfD is additional. Two prior AfDs closed Keep on substantially this basis. Robert-Cross-2804 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment No opinion. Promotional content tag since 2015 and COI tag since 2015 as well. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  For clarity: both tags date from the article's 2015 origins. A sourced rewrite addressing them has been offered on the talk page and was partly implemented this month; cleanup tags are not grounds for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. Robert-Cross-2804 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  To confirm, that the article has been tagged for a long time is not my reason for requesting deletion. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest as an associate of the article subject. I have posted neutral notifications of this discussion at the talk pages of WikiProjects Business, Companies and Architecture. Robert-Cross-2804 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Your COI is noted above, you don't need to mention it in every post in this discussion. Just trying to save you typing. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  I left a comment for you here regarding disclosure. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Two notes for participants. First, precedent: this article has survived two previous deletion discussions — closed as keep on 27 December 2015 and again on 30 August 2020. It also originally passed Articles for Creation review, where the accepting editor found it not overtly promotional. Second, sourcing: the article cites independent coverage specifically about the service — Larry Edsall's launch profile in The Detroit News (Sept. 5, 2007), the New York Times "Wheels" blog (Jan. 26, 2010), and The Auto Channel (June 2008). Every claim here is verifiable in the article's page history and reference list. Robert-Cross-2804 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Surviving previous AfD discussions does not show notability. Neither does AfC as this a review process despite the term "approve" being used a lot with the project. The only source I see that meets WP:CORPDEPTH at the moment is this and it would be very thin. Can you review CORPDEPTH and name the WP:THREE you feel do meet it? CNMall41 (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Radical-pair mechanism

Radical-pair mechanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Content fork that should be redirected to Magnetoreception#Cryptochrome. The main image already appears in that page, and also in the pages Cryptochrome and Quantum biology, and the topic is also mentioned in CIDNP#Radical pair mechanism. (It was previously a redirect to the CIDNP page. but that does not look right to me as that topic seems to be different science.) The Magnetoreception page is much more general, more a neutral point of view. Some of the content might be merged there, although it needs an expert in the area. (For instance I am not convinced that the section on xenon in the current page is appropriate. It might be plausible to create a page on the general properties of excited radical pairs with correllations to NMR and other science, but that would go far beyond the stated focus here.) Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Organisms, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  N.B., there is also a redirect Radical-pair-based chemical magnetoreception that should be cleaned up. Also Spin chemistry#Radical-pair mechanism, a mention in Frustrated Lewis pair and Magnetobiology plus more in a search. Not all of these are the same science. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, with cleanup of overlapping material. The radical-pair mechanism is not limited to cryptochrome or avian magnetoreception; it is a general mechanism in spin chemistry with applications to magnetic-field effects in chemical reactions, CIDNP/CIDEP, photosynthetic systems, and other areas. It has substantial treatment in independent reviews, including Turro (1983) and Ivanov et al. (2017). Redirecting the title to one biological application would therefore be too narrow. Any duplicated magnetoreception material can be trimmed or merged without removing the broader article. Bifmark (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  That would be WP:TNT as it would be a complete change of the topic. It would require significant rationalisation of the content in multiple articles (see the search link I gave). I have no problem with that as a longer term solution (plus a disambiguation), but I do think a wider concensus is needed, beyond this discussion. I have already raised the larger issue at WT:Chemistry#Potpourri of uses of radical pair. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Bifmark, if this debate does end in a decision to redirect, this would not stop you from drafting the article you suggest in draft-space; on acceptance it would then replace the redirect. Elemimele (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you both for the helpful clarification. I agree that a broader article would need substantial restructuring and wider discussion at WT:Chemistry#Potpourri of uses of radical pair. My main point was only that the sources support a standalone article in principle. If an interim redirect is the consensus, drafting a properly scoped replacement seems reasonable. Bifmark (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. (Note that I was the creator of the article.) As mentioned in the previous note, the radical-pair mechanism is not strictly limited to the cryptochrome, nor to avian magnetoreception. The source gives a good overview of multiple biological mechanisms where the radical-pair mechanism appears (including, but not limited to, avian magnetoreception). I also disagree that the article is overly focused on avian magnetoreception per WP:TNT; aside from the image, the entire "Mechanism" section is context-independent and applies to nearly all appliations of the radical-pair mechanism. I believe that the article is better served by adding additional content to show its wide range of uses, and I will certainly use the sources Bifmark provided to do so. DeemDeem52 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Anthony and Theodosius

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

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

As the article itself points out, we have Saint Anthony of Kiev and Theodosius of Kiev. Why do we need this one too? Anything not already in those two articles can be merged there. Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 15:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Ukraine. Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 15:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. They're consistently mentioned together, celebrated on the same feast day, cited together, and depicted together on icons. If we didn't have an article on the saints, we'd likely have one on the feast. Jahaza (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as notable as a pair as shown in the references already in the article and the fact they have a combined saints day, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge the joint commemoration into Anthony of Kiev and Theodosius of Kiev, then redirect to Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. Signahistar (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Elder Tunnels

Elder Tunnels (edit | talk | history | 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 references are absolutely junk. scope_creep^Talk 20:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tunnels & Trolls. The nominator is right about the sourcing. The only verifiable independent source is Casus Belli (2012), which mentions it briefly in a survey about T&T. Everything else is either self-published or not independent: two posts on a personal blog, a blog post by Scott Malthouse (one of the magazine's own staff writers), another blog post, a forum thread, a YouTube video, Flying Buffalo's licensee list, and DriveThruRPG store pages. This does not meet WP:GNG. Draftifying will not help, as the magazine ceased production in 2021 and more reliable sources are not likely to appear. A sentence about Elder Tunnels sourced to Casus Belli can be included in the Tunnels & Trolls article, with this title redirected to it. El Banhara (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Article author perspective: I got the idea to write Elder Tunnels article when I stumbled across the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Role-playing_game_magazines, and noticed a lack of T&T magazines in that category. I read many of the articles in that category. There are several small-publisher, small-print run magazines in that category, and some of them have few sources, references, and/or a short print run and scant history. I don't mean to devolve into whataboutism, but I suggest Elder Tunnels is at least as notable as some of those other magazines, even as I now acknowledge most of the sources on the Elder Tunnels article fall under WP:UGC, and some of those other articles are flagged as needing more citations. In the meantime I will see about finding more sources or even reviews that do not fall under WP:UGC. Bassaf (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge the History section, edited down a little, to a subsection of Tunnels & Trolls#List of Tunnels & Trolls publications alongside the other periodical there. I couldn't find any better sources either, and that only leaves Casus Belli in terms of reception. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The history section seems to have 5 references - 1 is non-rs, 2 seems to an unbylined blog post, 3 looks like clickbait, 4 is non-rs, 5 is a forum. Not a single one of these is suitable for a merge section somehwhere else. I would siggest a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 06:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Adam Sampson I will concede that all Reception section sources except the Casus Belli one, could be removed to comply with reliable source guidelines, but I still suggest the article is notable enough. At least as notable if not more than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Star which is a magazine in the same category, which has only one reference and very little other content, and whose article has been on Wikipedia since 2018. It was because of seeing other mags like this with so little content, that gave me idea to create article in the first place.

I also agree moving some of the third party licensing history to the main T&T article would work as it is not specific to Elder Tunnels, but affected all third party products, but the List of T&T publications in the T&T article are for officially published products by Flying Buffalo, except for the small Supplements by other companies section. If that Supplements by other companies section were to be expanded to include all third party publications it will fill up many pages as they are many fanzines and 3rd party products for T&T. (E.g. Dungeoneer Digest, Trollszine, Hobbit Hole magazine, etc.) A new article just for that list of supplements by other companies would be justified just based on amount of periodicals that could be listed there.

@Scope creep as for references in the history section, the first, despite being on Word Press, was an official news post by Flying Buffalo staff member Steve Crompton on the official T&T home page before Webbed Sphere bought T&T. Does being on Wordpress disqualify it categorically or does context make a difference? Likewise, the second is a news post by Rebellion, the current owners of T&T intellectual property. Although you point out it was not given official byline to a person but rather treated as a news update does that disqualify it? Would adding a byline help? I could contact them and ask them to attribute it to an author. Given it is official website of the company does that not make it a worthy source despite the missing byline? The third can be removed, no argument there. In fact on second glance I don't see why I even included that. The fourth link, to youtube, I included as it was coverage of the Webbed Sphere termination of third party licenses that I couldn't find web articles for elsewhere, but do concede it could full under WP:UGC. How does Wikipedia handle information that is common or widespread knowledge but somehow isn't sourceable? (Homework project for myself to find out.) The fifth source as a forum I concede is WP:UGC. But, I think scope_creep's argument is that the content of the History section isn't sourceable and therefore the article has less meat to it by removing the entire section. Even so, it would still be as "meaty" as Alien Star.

As for the Reception sources, I can remove all but Casus Belli as there seems to be consensus the other sources are not Reliable. Although as a matter of reception I argue the Drivethrurpg copper best seller mention points to "Reception" if only to indicate its appeal. Or does that also violate a WP policy? I see many articles that use Drivethrurpg as a source, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragonlance_modules_and_sourcebooks#cite_note-:14-3 . As articles in AfD can still be edited during discussion I went ahead and removed all but Casus and Drivethru. Bassaf (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No, not adding a byline will help. You need WP:SECONDARY sources to prove the subject is notable. Even if the official news post, that would still make it a WP:PRIMARY source. Primary sources can't be used to establish notability. The same with Rebellion. That is WP:PRIMARY. Youtube is not a reliable source. scope_creep^Talk 20:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

BMW 320 TC

BMW 320 TC (edit | talk | history | 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 BMW 3 Series (E90)#Motorsports because like articles about drivers, Wikipedia have become far too overpopulated with articles about drivers, teams and races as well as cars that do not assert notability to warrant its own article and this is one of them.

Looking at the sources, 2 of the 3 are WP:PRIMARY, the other is a blog post. Searched per WP:BEFORE turns out barely anything of significance thus enforcing my reason to propose a merge. BuffaloTaro (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Transportation. BuffaloTaro (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Not sure - it is a lot of largely unrelated content to add to BMW 3 Series (E90), perhaps the best thing to do is to have a page dedicated to the various racing versions of the E90. Fully agree that this article needs better sourcing, but I think it will be easy to make this meet WP:N. Did you notify other involved editors?  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  perhaps the best thing to do is to have a page dedicated to the various racing versions of the E90
  This can be done, yeah! FaviFake (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Chelsie Baham

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

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

I propose redirecting to Big Brother 26 (American season). Her notability may be only winning that season and becoming the first woman to win it by unanimous jury vote (WP:BIO1E). Her later television appearances are also primary sources: two guest appearances and losing Amazing Race. I'm hesitant to treat these appearances like verifications of her general notability (GNG and WP:NBASIC), especially when WP:BIOSPECIAL, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and WP:NOTPLOT may also apply. Even being someone else's niece is something to reconsider before treating it as a way to make her notable. George Ho (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC); edited, 18:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and California. George Ho (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones Irish Tour 1965

The Rolling Stones Irish Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | 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 The Rolling Stones 1965 tours because that page already has the same info, with a few extra sources. This is an extra page for no apparent reason. There are also individual pages for every Stones tour that year, so I propose merging those too. These include:

• The Rolling Stones Far East Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 1st British Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 1st European Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 2nd European Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 1st American Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 3rd European Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 2nd Irish Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 4th European Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 2nd British Tour 1965
• The Rolling Stones 2nd American Tour 1965 – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support. It's hard to justify much of this content, but even harder to justify content forks for each leg of their 1965 touring schedule. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Support all mergers. We don't need to be this granular. SenshiSun (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

300-page iPhone bill

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill
• Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination)

300-page iPhone bill (edit | talk | history | 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 iJustine#300-page iPhone bill because the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While unquestionable that the article passes WP:GNG, it purports that the 300-page iPhone bill had some sort of effect on AT&T when the company denied it ever did, and vastly overstates the stream's effect on society. It even says that iJustine accidentally chose paper billing, which is what caused her to get the bill in the first place. There is nothing demonstrating this needs to be talked about outside the context of the streamer or History of the iPhone#Oversized bills. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: all three prior nominations were from 2007 itself, and suffice it to say were from a different time (closer to the event itself, some of our standards being looser, etc.). Of course, they were all traditional deletion nominations, long before mergers were merged into AfD (only this year). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose Given the nominator's own concession that it qualifies under GNG, that qualification necessarily means that it isn't indiscriminate information. Unless we're hoping to simply blow it up and start again, there's no reason to do anything but fix the discrepancies noted here. The content concerns don't matter per WP:CONTN, thus there's nothing in terms of site policy that really supports a merge.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I should also add that the text at History of the iPhone#Oversized bills also makes the same "correlation implies causation" argument that iJustine caused the company to decrease bill size. This does not seem to have ever been directly proven, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. This is a perfect example for a smerge. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep It'd be undue weight to merge it, and would be pretty darn confusing. And it meets GNG, which no one seems to have disagreed with. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be undue weight. A large chunk of the article is about the iPhone controversy more generally and can be merged into History of the iPhone#Oversized bills instead of iJustine's page. Splitting the information appropriately between the two pages would result in fairly small increases in size of a paragraph or two, far from a massive shift in the articles' content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:32, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The article meets GNG as it's sourced from many reliable sources, proving that this isn't indiscriminate information. The topic has enough weight to stand alone by itself. The issues above can be fixed in the article without deletion or merging. EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merge, GNG met, this video had almost iconic status and almost single-handidly brought the problem before the public and media. 'Merge' should probably be used a lot less than the trend is moving, too many too quick is no way to go through Wikipedia. The nomination doesn't seem to summarize the lead of the article, which gives this meme much more importance and influence than the nom describes. The page has survived three nominations, runs pretty steady at 100 views a day (not to say that views determine such cases but it helps to know that the meme is still known and searched for, so not a one-year wonder) and hopefully this will be the last and the stand-alone page kept intact. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

It's rather disappointing that after an entire hullabaloo about such spurious claims, your argument still includes WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:POPULARPAGE, both invalid arguments to use in AfD, in the same exact sentence. While you did acknowledge pageviews don't necessarily equate to notability, that shouldn't even enter into the discussion at all to begin with. Something can be getting tens of thousands of views and be distinctly merge-worthy.

Now, addressing your more policy-based claim that the video "had almost iconic status and almost single-handedly bought the problem before the public and media" - do you have proof of this claim that isn't something from the article itself? As I said, the article does a "correlation implies causation" argument that misleadingly equates iJustine's video with AT&T changing their billing. The NY Times article says "For the last several weeks, iPhone users have been by turns amused or enraged over the sheer heft — some are the size of small novels — of the bills they are receiving from AT&T. Yesterday, in response to Ms. Ezarik and scores of others, AT&T’s wireless business sent text messages to all its iPhone users to let them know that it will be sending them summarized bills from now on." (emphasis mine) It appears that AT&T was more influenced simply by general negative feedback re: the bill size. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as consensus against a merger, but relisting per TP request for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge into History of the iPhone#Oversized bills and iJustine#300-page iPhone bill per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Most of the oppose !votes are imo flawed, for example EvanTech10 and to a lesser extent Randy Kryn ignore that this isn't a deletion discussion but a merge discussion. When the nom says "it meets GNG but should be merged per NOPAGE", a response like "it should not be merged because it meets GNG" is nonsensical. The article is not long, especially if merged to two pages, so there are no UNDUE problems. The question is not whether the video should be mentioned at all, but where. We don't have the kind of secondary coverage that would put beyond doubt that it warrants a standalone page. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I believe this is better covered at the two targets rather than being singled-out. FaviFake (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Eric (Swedish king 800)

Eric (Swedish king 800) (edit | talk | history | 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 Eric Anundsson because I believe these two figures are the same person. The information in the two articles seem to discuss the same person. (I do not speak swedish however, and I know Eric/Erik is far from an obscure name there, so I will fully acquiest to anyone with more firsthand knowledge of mythic swedish history) LincolnMagnus (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sweden. LincolnMagnus (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Going by the sources in the article, these seem to be different people. This article is about a person whose existence is attested only through the Sparlösa Runestone, and merging with Eric Anundsson seems like a WP:FRANKENSTEIN situation. It might however be appropriate to merge this into the Sparlösa Runestone article. TompaDompa (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merge. English sources suggest these are different people, and that many kings were named Erik. Ping me if better sources or Swedish speakers willing to translate are found. SenshiSun (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Opppose merge. No clear basis for merging the two articles. /Julle (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Participants suggested merging the article into Sparlösa Runestone. On October 2, a merge notice was placed on that article, so this AfD may need to be relisted to incorporate input from editors monitoring Sparlösa Runestone
  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FaviFake (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  This seems like the more correct merge to go with LincolnMagnus (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Weak merge into Sparlösa Runestone instead – Per TompaDompa, the article can be merged there instead. there isn't enough for an article about the person. FaviFake (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Sparlösa Runestone. The article is too insufficient to keep. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Volvexzshawa

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Volvexzshawa
• Articles for deletion/Volvexzshawa (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Volvexzshawa (3rd nomination)

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

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

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, fails WP:V. Likely WP:TOOSOON 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Kenya. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: both prior nominations (in 2023 and 2025) ended in deletion, and almost certainly would appear to be the same subject. If deleted again (I have no opinion on that), it's probably time to consider salting, and a stricter AfC requirement on any future draft attempts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails GNG and I cannot locate the guideline that makes musicians notable for "street battle rap." WP:TNT candidate but the AfD is good so we can determine the need to salt. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Democracy Way

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

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

This seems like an interesting enough topic. However, it has lacked sourcing for years at this point, and its extensive german language page has not been used to expand up the english page at all. Without the sourcing, I feel like the page should be deleted, unless someone is willing to do the work to provide any sourced information about this trail. LincolnMagnus (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Germany. LincolnMagnus (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: If the books listed in the German article provide significant coverage it looks as if there's material on which to write an article. There also appear to be some online sources. I'll see if any are accessible via Google translate or a German speaker wanders in here. Star Mississippi 21:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per SK3 - no actual policy-based reason for deletion has been given by the nominator. "Nobody's working on it" is not a policy-based reason to delete an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  My nomination was over the lack of sourcing to support the information, but I may have stumbled into that type of bad nomination here. If this nom does constitutes this sort of bad argument, then keeping the article is warranted. LincolnMagnus (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Dratify It should stay but first needs to be significantly improved PlainJane91 (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Dratify: I agree with PlainJane91. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The article was created in 2011 and is too old to draftify. The books in the German article are about this route, based on the titles, see also this review. There is also online coverage that discusses the route briefly Kelob2678 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  The books in the Historischer Überblick are not about the route; they were written before the route existed. I don't read the German article as claiming that they are about the route only that they are about the places or events connected to the route. The other sources in the literature section are the travel guide and an article in a local newspaper.

  The other sources you mention are about the route or the travel guide so they are relevant to the discussion. Rolluik (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I thought that the history of the route starts from the 1848 revolutions. Travel guides are acceptable sources for content like this. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Travel guides are acceptable but this one is "scientifically based travel guide created in joint work by the participants" so it isn't independent. The route exists since 7 September 2007 to bring people/tourists to these places that where relevant in the 1848 revolutions. Rolluik (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  The government officially established this, and historians wrote a work. Surely, they were prompted by the government, but how does this make them non-independent? By this logic, most academic work is non-independent because it is funded by third parties and many academics write about what is fashionable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify to work on it. No article is too old to draftify. — Iadmc♫^talk  16:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTBACKDOOR, which is a part of the deletion policy, says, "Incubation must not be used as a "backdoor to deletion". Because abandoned drafts are deleted after six months, moving articles to draft space should generally be done only for newly created articles (typically as part of new page review) or as the result of a deletion discussion. Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD." To me, it is clear that this page will be abandoned and deleted if draftified. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no valid argument for draftification here. If the 15 year old article is about a notable subject, improvement can and should be made in mainspace. If the subject isn't notable, moving it to draftspace is just a delay tactic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Routes should still meet WP:GNG. We have the websites of the municipalities taking part or the travel guide that are not independent. Local coverage also exists. The book review in Die Zeit and the mention in the bpb is not enough for me. Neither is the article in the Frankfurter Rundschau (local coverage, It is currently the best source.). The books in the German article provide no coverage of the route (they were written before the route existed). There are also at least 2 other routes of Democracy. The places are notable, the route is not (yet?). Rolluik (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Squeeze paper

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

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

Merge to Epigraphy - It seems to me that this could just be part of the main Epigraphy article. I also think that Estampage should be similarly merged as it seems to be basically the same process as Squeeze paper. These do seem sufficiently different to Rubbing (art). Estampage AFD here BleachPuffin (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Leaning oppose Merge per discussion below @BleachPuffin, could you offer a model of how this information might be contextualized within the target article?

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment - @CSGinger14 I would expect it to be merged to the existing (all be it blank) section on materials and technique. I have entered into the Epigraphy article how I would expect it to be along with the content from Estampage. For now wikilinked to the two articles. No objection to reversion if we do not think this is the right thing to do. BleachPuffin (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I think that'd be perfectly fine, so long as you'd be willing to commit to creating an introduction at the destination article summarizing the practices and how they fit into the broader specialty. Otherwise I'll happily strike my opposition.

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully the introduction I have now added fits the bill, happy to refine (or let me know if I have missed the point) BleachPuffin (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Estampage

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

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

Merge to Epigraphy - It seems to me that this could just be part of the main Epigraphy article. I also think that Squeeze paper should be similarly merged as it seems to be basically the same process as Estampage. These do seem sufficiently different to Rubbing (art). Squeeze paper AFD here BleachPuffin (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Leaning oppose Merge per discussion at referenced AfD [Prev: See my comment at the squeeze paper discussion.]

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squeeze paper BleachPuffin (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

ATI HPSS

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

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

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

Moved from Talk:Acoustic Technology Incorporated § Merge proposal at ATI HPSS

 – FaviFake (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Acoustic Technology Incorporated

Hello. Due to this article being recently created and the HPSS article being absolute trash, they should be moved here as the HPSS article should not be on its own. Robloxguest3 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

MaST Community Charter School

MaST Community Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Education in Philadelphia because almost the entire article is supported by only two old sources, one of which is from the institution itself, and the other is dead. My BEFORE yields very few SIGCOV sources, and even then the supposedly reliable sources are mostly student lottery winnings. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Gene Pike Middle School

Gene Pike Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Only trivial coverage. Vgbypw (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United States of America, and Texas. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Northwest Independent School District: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — GhostRiver 21:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Bangla (2006 film)

Bangla (2006 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)

Searched on Google couldn't find enough news references, fails WP:NFilm. If anyone can find 3 in-depth SIRS please add them and let me know, I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose It's a very notable film. I was only able to find one good source for now, (the other being a first party media of the same group). But, it's an iconic film on an important part of the countries history that has ingrained itself over many years. I hope it can stay up. Greatder (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I think these three sources might just scrape by for 3RR.

• https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/14999/language-movement-lost-in-celluloid
• Prothomalo source
• https://www.bondhushava.com/writings/podjpks8xi

Greatder (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

David Thomas (British businessman)

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

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

Delete - Originally raised PROD on the basis that WP:NOTCV and that article does not show that subject is independently notable from Barratt Redrow. PROD seconded by Altenmann on basis that "Thomas steps down from CEO this year and there is no other trace of his accomplishments in the company. ". PROD removed by User:Edwardx who I understand is a very experienced and long standing editor and who I know will have a rationale for keeping article. Users tagged for courtesy as they have been involved in PRODs so far. It is not currently noted in the article that subject is moving to Rightmove but I don't think that this makes him anymore notable. BleachPuffin (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirect - Bloomberg is not RS (neither the footnote cited is SIGCOV), the rest is routine business coverage. --Altenmann >talk 16:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment edwardx deprodded arguing that the company is in FTSE 100 Index. But I believe it is a consensus in WP that notability is not inherited. --Altenmann >talk 18:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

In Our Garden (film)

In Our Garden (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting because the film appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. Previously redirected to the director, but recreated DonaldD23 talk to me 03:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Giuseppe Andrews#As director (with the history preserved under the redirect), the film's director, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: These are the only sources I can find:
  1. "NY Underground Film Festival". Chelsea News. 2015-02-16. NewsBank 1772BBB69F8F0E48.

     The article notes: "Giuseppe Andrews' "In Our Garden," an overlong (87 minutes) but fascinating video in which two residents of a Ventura, CA, trailer park reenact the director's crude, vulgar, strangely touching romance script. Beware: it starts with a man fishing in a toilet, hoping to catch "the brown-eyed grouper.""

  2. Prigge, Matt (2003-06-18). "Repertory". Philadelphia Weekly. NewsBank 1586FD3017D4E420.

     The article notes: "Trailer Town (2002) (Shown on video): Features at the Five, one of filmmaker Andrew Repasky McElhinney's 50 or so side projects, makes its annual return to showcase the world of literal independent cinema. Cheapies, often from locals but expanding all the way to Florida, are the bread and butter here, and some of them aren't pretty. Like this one, in fact. Director Giuseppe Andrews popped up at last year's round with In Our Garden, a film I was entirely unprepared for. It was the first film I've seen about and starring drunken and/or drugged up trailer folk, spouting casual obscenities and falling in love. Now he's back with the same shtick, and consider me a convert. Now used to his style (and considering exploitation's not wholly feasible when some of the same "actors" return for more), I'd say he's a kind of neo-John Waters. Wed., June 18, 7pm."

  The sources do not provide enough coverage to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment:@Cunard: Andrew Repasky McElhinney is a entirely different filmmaker than Giuseppe Andrews. Are you sure the quote is right (I can't access it)? What is Features at the Five and didn't Trailer Town release in 2003? DareshMohan (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

SBI Graduate School

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment — A search in Japanese (SBI大学院大学) yields a number of sources but most of the them are paid pieces. Weeding through them, I found these - . These contain significant coverage but I ain't sure about the reliability and independence of these two sources. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  ITmedia is reliable per WP:POPSHIMBUN and WP:VG/S, Hamakei (Yokohama Keizai Shimbun) is part of the Minna no Keizai Shimbun Network so WP:NEWSORG Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:35, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mothuka, Faridabad

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mothuka, Faridabad (edit | talk | history | 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. the sources presented in the talkpage are insufficient enough on their own to meet V Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment My comment from the talk, "There was a controversy about admissions in 2023. On its own, this is not enough, but maybe there is something else, so should be additionally discussed". So redirect if nothing else is found, but it makes sense to search a bit more. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Can't find much else besides what Kelob2678 found. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Haryana. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: The admissions controversy gives it some notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Snehangshu Kanta Acharya Institute of Law

Snehangshu Kanta Acharya Institute of Law (edit | talk | history | 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) 02:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Schools, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, first law institute of Nadia district, having reliable source with separate commons Category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinakpani (talk • contribs) 05:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to University of Kalyani#Affiliated Colleges — Additional searches yielded nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Question does it fail only English language tests for WP:GNG? What about Hindu and the local languages? — VPP (t/c) 17:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  I had checked for sources in Bengali too, which is the local tongue. And the results are nil. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Kim Goodman

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

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

I am very scared to look at the eyeball pop. Please I would die if I see this, I am very afraid I will die. I don't like seeing this it disrupts my mind and having nightmares. ArtopiaBoy (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. ArtopiaBoy (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. The nominator has an ...unorthodox editing style. The nomination could be thrown out for lacking merit, but I actually think the subject might fail WP:BLP1E. Geschichte (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment But I don't like eyeball pops, It's very scary and it gives me nightmares. I don't like it.ArtopiaBoy (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment we should definitely have this AfD. WP:BLP1E is written around events rather than life-long characteristics, but it's the only guideline we have. ArtopiaBoy's reason for nominating is also, weirdly, the reason why we have the article in the first place: To boost readership/viewership on a boring Friday, media will happily turn out a popular interest piece on anything that's likely to make the reader/viewer think "Oooh, that's freaky-weird!", and coverage is likely to be sustained and international, because boring Fridays happen regularly over decades and across continents. This applies to Goodman, who therefore passes GNG. I personally think that articles like this turn Wikipedia into a collection of trivia that seem trivial even by pub-quiz standards, but we do have articles on the world's smallest man etc., so I wonder whether we need some guidelines on what a human characteristic needs to have, to render its owner notable? I'd be sympathetic to deleting a lot of this stuff based on a broad interpretation of BLP1E (the Guinness book of records is its natural habitat), but opinions are going to differ wildly. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: "I don't like it" is not a valid deletion rationale. The sources given are not very detailed; she's treated as a novelty. I'm going to check academic sources to see if there's anything more specific. SenshiSun (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Well, Guinness records aren't notable, and that seems to be about all we have here for notability. Very much a 1E case. I tried looking for coverage, there's only some articles about the eye thing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Robert Blohm

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

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

Not notable. All citations currently in the article are to the guy's own website, which makes sense since he wrote the article himself. Said website lists some newspaper articles and such that he's written; it does not qualify for WP:AUTHOR. I can find no independent coverage of him, so fails WP:GNG. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Canada, and United States of America. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm Robert Blohm attempting to reply to AntiDionysius. I don't know how to format a reply yet, nor do I know if this is the only place where I need reply. I'm eager to adjust.

My Wikipedia page has been up for a good 20 years, and I have done major updating once a decade.

Today I made the only significant addition to my article since a year ago when I did some small editing but had long forgotten my password which was irrecoverable because my email ISP closed its domain listed on my Wikipedia account when bought out by Verizon. So there was frequent anonymous movement by me for a brief period.

Today I only added two things: a "Family History", and a box with no new content except for a photo for the first time. The Family History and the photo have been summarily removed. So I don't see the urgency for summarily deleting the rest of my account which I didn't change but for a word or two, with editorial comment on the change. Also the cautionary automated note on my account disappeared entirely during my work. I was very slow to get back into the ins and outs of editing. This is the first complaint I've received from a person in the 20 years of my article.

I can withdraw that Family History for good. But I would like to restore the photo which I can't see the relation of to the two issues AntiDionysius raises, namely of "standing" either as a commentator and as a policy professional.

Three years ago was the last major change I made to the page, to specifically address any concern such as AntiDionysius is raising: I gathered together and appended thereto an extensive press kit attached hereto https://www.robertblohm.com/cvBlohm%26Bibliography.pdf of 670 only top media references to me and output by me, counterfactually to AntiDionysius' saying he "can find no independent coverage of" me (i.e. no notability) and, referencing my website and probably neglecting to click the extensive list it has of the more recent two decades of activity not directly shown on the site, saying the website "lists some newspaper articles and such that he's written" (i.e. not an author).

That is not to mention my 35 decades of "and such" continuous contributions to the editorial page of the world's most influential newspaper, "The Wall Street Journal", as one of its most frequent and longest outside contributors. Not to mention my position as the oldest and longest participant and official in the North American Electric Reliability Corp. the supranational regulatory body that holds the fate of our AI security in its hands. Nor that I have been among the most regular guests of the International Monetary Fund, to its Annual and Spring Meetings since last decade, like the one I've been preparing to go to in Bangkok next week.

AntiDionysius also says there are citations in my article but they don't count because "all citations currently in the article are to the guy's own website". That doesn't mean to articles I self publish and post there, it means important outside articles that I may post the print versions of or outside articles no longer archived by the publishers after many years. I should also be cognizant of copyright and not flaunting them.

The name AntiDionysius is suggestive of fighting fraud in the form of so-called neoplatonist Dionysius and his centuries later commentator Pseudo-Dionysius considered by some to be covers/usurpers of others.

I am prepared to curate and propagate contents of my presskit directly onto my Wikipedia page as long as it doesn't raise copyright concerns. But that takes time and I can't do it quickly enough to allay an imperative to delete my account. Notably in the twenty years, no one has altered or disputed anything that's been said in the article.

Please inform me that I'm writing this in proper form in the proper forum and missing no chance to engage. Robert Blohm (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)--Robert Blohm (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Blohm (talk • contribs) 18:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking through his resume I can't find anything that would meet NAUTHOR. Delete per nom. msk 19:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Be my guest here: 670

https://www.robertblohm.com/cvBlohm%26Bibliography.pdf Robert Blohm (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)--Robert Blohm (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Robert Blohm (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. This discussion is focused on the article. Your account is safe; you don't need to worry.

However, the article reads as a promotional puff piece for its subject. I will need to review the articles compiled about Robert. SenshiSun (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Emery Gate

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

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

Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. This article was previously subject to a cleanup by myself as there was a strong promotional tone and a lot of commentary, unfortunately this has left a very bare bones article and I'm struggling to find any non-local and non-routine WP:SIGCOV. I have being able to identify some routine coverage of shops closing and opening within the centre, and some recent commentary on a proposed redevelopment of the site, but nothing that is beyond WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Whilst the redevelopment itself may become notable, Notability needs to be assessed on current coverage and unfortunately despite my best efforts I'm unable to satisfy that there is adequate non-routine coverage to justify keeping this article. GeekBurst (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep - it appears that some of the sources I added when I created this article have been removed in subsequent edits. This included coverage from the 1980s and coverage of the plans to demolish and replace the shopping centre. WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources and this subject meets that - RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay and doesn't trump policy. Garuda3 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:G11. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Ana Cheri

Ana Cheri (edit | talk | history | 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 appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV in any way. Very shoddy sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete. I've tagged for G11 for such stellar prose as Cheri was athletically gifted and interested in sports, especially air hockey, kickboxing, and MMA. In high school, she was a cheerleader and describes herself as "the biggest flirt" and a "social butterfly" during her school years.. msk 19:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Pacific University (India)

Pacific University (India) (edit | talk | history | 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. Most sources some from the institution itself Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete — Found nothing with SIGCOV in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. Still, ping me if useful sources are found. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 17:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: I tend not to concern myself too much with private institutions, but I found a number of sources that indicate that it's at least an established institution in the region, as well as several sources with much more than a passing mention (though the articles are focused on a particular subject (but that doesn't actually negate SIGCOV within them). It seems there's been some pretty serious accusations surrounding the management of the institution, thus I'd hesitate to delete it off the cuff without further consideration. Will look to @BhikhariInformer for a determination on the sourcing, though, as I tend to trust their judgement.

  • CBI Raids Rajasthan Medical College
  • Udaipur's Dental College BDS student commits suicide, alleges mental harassment in note, 2 accused...
  • Udaipur private dental college student dies by suicide:Alleges torture by staff; fellow batchmates protest and demand justice
  • Rajasthan's Udaipur BDS Student’s Suicide Sparks Protests; Note Alleges Mental Harassment By Staff
  • SC imposes ₹110 cr fine on 11 Rajasthan Dental colleges:Admissions given even to students with zero or negative NEET scores - Not SigCov but indicates it's part of a class
  • Over 250 Students Take Pledge on Pharmacists Day at Pacific College of Pharmacy
  • Interstate Student Groups Clash at Pacific University

  CSGinger14 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  @CSGinger14 Thanks for the ping! I went through the refs....the first 5 are actually about "Pacific Dental College", the 6th one is about "Pacific College of Pharmacy" and only the last one is about "Pacific University", which is the subject of this AfD. With those sources, we can probably have a separate page on "Pacific Dental College", but a standalone page for "Pacific University" still doesn't seem to be on the cards. Thanks! BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  ​Would you guess it might be prudent to simply move this page to Pacific Dental College after the fact? Might let us preserve what's otherwise scholarly info that's just simply not notable at this time.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the sources provided by CSGinger14. It appears that this dental college is a subunit of this larger university and I think sources about it should contribute to the notability of the combined page. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think that would depend on whether this is a for-profit institution that would probably be governed by NCORP Katzrockso (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I understand WP:INHERITORG as claiming that we cannot have a page on a company in addition to a page on its subsidiaries only because the latter are notable. This doesn't prohibit combining the page of an organization with its subunits and treating coverage about either of them as establishing the notability of the page. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

StankDawg

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/StankDawg
• Articles for deletion/StankDawg (2nd nomination)

StankDawg (edit | talk | history | 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 provide evidence of meeting WP:NBIO (significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject) - citations are mostly self-published.

Also not seeing a strong case for WP:CREATIVE - his major works, including Binary Revolution Radio, Digital DawgPound, HackTV, and DocDroppers, don't seem to have significant independent secondary coverage. I put in this nomination a month ago, closed as delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital DawgPound (2nd nomination). It looks like the arguments in the first AfD for this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StankDawg) were mostly along the lines of WP:CREATIVE, including for his articles in 2600, but that work doesn't seem to meet the current criteria.

I searched for the person's name, handle, and project names in Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Newspapers.com, and a basic Wikipedia Library EBSCO search, and did not find much. Brief coverage: 2004 opinion piece, page 271 in 2011 book, page 39 in another 2011 book. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2007, but that might have been under the lower standards of the era, and it has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2023. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Internet, Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I was involved with editing this article in 2006 (20 years ago!) and went through it again just now. I've expanded the list of works by both StankDawg and some Digital DawgPound members, added a 2011 standalone interview, and added information about his post-BinRev work, such as co-hosting the first episode of Hacker Public Radio. HPR's archives credit him with 18 episodes across HPR and its predecessor, Today with a Techie, through 2011. --Elonka 19:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Most importantly, a lot of cruft has been removed: less is more. Good rescue by Elonka. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Curious if you're seeing any significant, independent secondary coverage of the person or the creative works? Dreamyshade (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I am not seeing any sources that count towards WP:GNG/WP:CREATIVE. Interviews and podcast appearances do not count towards GNG. A summary of a presentation he gave is not significant independent coverage of the subject or his work. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I can only find coverage about Hacker Public Radio, but nothing about this person or the hacking collective. Literally nothing in Gnews or Newspapers, even a Gsearch brings up, not much of anything. I don't see a pass at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Waltograph

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

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

Zero sigcov outside of a single PCWorld source. Flickr is a primary source while user reviews of a download does not establish notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Disney and Technology. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I tried looking for "Walt Disney font" as an alternative, not much comes up other than download sites. Even the sourcing now in the article isn't enough (it's also orange per Cite Highlighter, so of marginal notability). Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Maine Unko Sajan Chun Liya

Maine Unko Sajan Chun Liya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All are promotional articles. Also This film has no single critic review after its release which makes the article not pass WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. All the source are promotional press releases articles. User:Ronit creator talk— Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Sanki Daroga

Sanki Daroga (edit | talk | history | 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 film has no critic review after its release which Clearly makes the article not pass WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. All the source are promotional. First look poster etc. User:Ronit creator talk— Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, Bihar, and Jharkhand. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Love Aur Rajneeti

Love Aur Rajneeti (edit | talk | history | 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 film has no critic review after its release which makes the article not pass WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. All the source are promotional links. Wikipedia is not for promoting film. User:Ronit creator talk— Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, Bihar, and Jharkhand. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:14, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Aaron Massey

Aaron Massey (edit | talk | history | 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 sources identified are mainly interviews, profiles in the poker press, and databases that document Aaron Massey’s career but do not provide sufficient independent and substantial secondary coverage. Although I have tried to improve the article, at this time it still does not demonstrate the level of encyclopedic notability required. Epicday (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Epicday (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:23, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: the sourcing is just not there, no WP:SIGCOV. Marquardtika (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Cameron Brown (game director)

Cameron Brown (game director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Minimal sigcov outside of that inherited from his games. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean, makes sense. This page has looked pretty same-y looking at the edit history, and the only notable changes that were done were additions/edits to interviews he's done, and also minor edits to the introductory paragraph. He's not even a "big guy" either in terms of what he's done, so that's probably why this page looks so basic. It's also pretty hard to find any other notable information about him considering the fact that he's never gone in depth into things like his biography and whatnot. MrrfyW (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep - sigcov can be inherited through WP:NCREATIVE, and I see that he's directed multiple notable games (The Saboteur, The Dame Was Loaded, and Radical Rex, among others). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

'Ubayd ibn 'Abdillah Al-Jabiri

'Ubayd ibn 'Abdillah Al-Jabiri (edit | talk | history | 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 has several concerns regarding source independence WP:RS / WP:IS, potential WP:COI, and WP:LLM-assisted editing.

Most sources appear closely connected to the subject or his teachings, with limited independent coverage to support WP:GNG. Additionally, I suggest reviewing the article history carefully. AriuCH (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. AriuCH (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Kisseran (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Denis Connolly

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

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

Not notable.

This article is a twin of Anne Cleary, as the two are an artistic duo. They were created by and have had almost all of their subsequent editing from obvious COI accounts. If they did merit an article it would just be one as there is no coverage of them as individuals, only their joint work. But they don't meet that bar either.

The few bits of coverage I could locate:

Already in the article:

• One review of an exhibition
• Another review
• A review which discusses them as people in a bit more depth.
• A clip of an interview.
• Two broken links which I could not rescue.

Not in the article:

• One paid PR piece
• One more review
• And less than half a dozen passing mentions.

Four reviews (three from the same newspaper) and one interview do not count as SIGCOV, so GNG is out. And there is no indication that their body of work is "significant or well-known", regardless of whether those reviews fulfil the additional "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" requirement of ARTIST. And the few local awards mentioned (all unsourced) clearly don't meet the "well-known and significant award or honor" part of WP:ANYBIO. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Ireland. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Anne Cleary

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

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

Not notable.

This article is a twin of Denis Connolly, as the two are an artistic duo. They were created by and have had almost all of their subsequent editing from obvious COI accounts. If they did merit an article it would just be one as there is no coverage of them as individuals, only their joint work. But they don't meet that bar either.

The few bits of coverage I could locate:

Already in the article:

• One review of an exhibition
• Another review
• A review which discusses them as people in a bit more depth.
• Two broken links which I could not rescue.

Not in the article:

• One paid PR piece
• One more review
• A clip of an interview in the Denis Connolly article.
• And less than half a dozen passing mentions.

Four reviews (three from the same newspaper) and one interview do not count as SIGCOV, so GNG is out. And there is no indication that their body of work is "significant or well-known", regardless of whether those reviews fulfil the additional "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" requirement of ARTIST. And the few local awards mentioned (all unsourced) clearly don't meet the "well-known and significant award or honor" part of WP:ANYBIO. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Ireland. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Astral Voyage (album)

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

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

A different article about this album was previously listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenkai (aka Astral Voyage), where it was closed as redirect due to lack of evidence that the article subject is notable. Apparently, someone created a new article under another title, but there is still no evidence of notability. Listing at AfD instead of redirecting per WP:G4 as it has been over a decade since the previous AfD. Stefan2 (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom - not enough coverage, not notable. I could find one review on some guy's blog and that was basically it. Even on user review sites it consistently has fewer than 10 ratings. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kitarō discography#Studio albums as an alternative to deletion. AllMusic has only a rating, no actual review. Sputnikmusic has an user review: . --Mika1h (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Kangso Rey

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

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

Difficult to see if it meets WP:N. The article makes exceptional claims. No scholarly coverage of subject. Segaton (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Nepal. Segaton (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete This is all I can find, pretty much. I have not found any mention of him outside of this one battle at Chainpur. That battle might be notable, but I don't see how this general warrants his own article. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Mahendra Singh Rai

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

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

Difficult to see if it meets WP:N. The article makes exceptional claims. No scholarly coverage of subject. Segaton (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Nepal. Segaton (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Béatrice Cointreau

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

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. All sources are either non-independent (interviews) or passing mention of the person.

Article is created by a TA ~2026-47494-62 who submitted repeated non-notable AI-generated articles to AfC.

Also pinging @User:Jishara since they accepted the AfC 🍅 fx (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Wine, France, and United States of America. 🍅 fx (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and likely is WP:LLM. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah - it didn't read like LLM anywhere, and the sources I checked all were real sources that supported the info, so I didn't think there was an LLM. As for notability, I accepted based on the Legion of Honor medal per WP:ANYBIO, but if that's an insufficient award I wouldn't be opposed to deletion. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: insufficient valid secondary sources to pass GNG. She might have a famous last name but notability is not inherited here and also, we are not LinkedIn --TitCrisse (t•c) 00:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC).

Gunjan Singh

Gunjan Singh (edit | talk | history | 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. No indication of proper notability. Pirateofthewest (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Pirateofthewest (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant as a scholar. Athel cb (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 09:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete – WP:RUNOFTHEMILL scholar; Google returns unrelated results when searching for the name. I did not see anything that suggests my initial instinct is off, but if someone has sources to prove otherwise feel free to ping me as I have not dug too deep here. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete - As pointed out by Pirateofthewest, it fails WP:GNG and doesn't provide much information. With kind regards, Blint (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Giorgia Andriani

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

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

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of a temporary account as requested at WT:AFD. I have no opinion on the actual proposal and won't watch this discussion.

Requesting AFD nomination for this page, reason is sources are mostly routine coverages and fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ~2026-51391-43 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, India, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Germany, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Lean Keep as there are over 20 sources which list the subject in their titles, and the fuller coverage of the stand-alone worthy web series, which seems like more than "routine coverage" (wording from the nomination). I realize there is concern that Indian sourcing is less than ideal, but the amount of coverage here seems to indicate that GNG may have been met, but will watch the discussion in case the nominators or others can make a better case for deletion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I dont find anything notable as far as WP:GNG is concerned. Aeroes (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Passing mentions, no notable roles or any notable awards so far. Per nom, this fails WP:NBIO. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Rana Kapur

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

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

One-sentence article about a person who lived in the early 11 century. Only two sources, one of which is a Census from 1991 relating to Kapurthala, not the subject. No SIGCOV found to establish notability. ScottyNolan (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Punjab. ScottyNolan (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

you may keep the article, or merge it with the page Kapurthala. i can share three more reliable sources except the one already provided. i agree that census source may not be reliable. the other three sources are:

1:The Sikh Reference Book By Harajindara Siṅgha Dilagīra · 1997. written by a historian.

2: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Punjab_District_Gazetteers_Sangrur/ThduAAAAMAAJ?hl=en p-21

3: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Punjab/U44BAAAAMAAJ?hl=en p-176

talk

DavidSchop DavidSchop (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Can I Watch You

Can I Watch You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to B'Day#20th Anniversary Deluxe Edition. The song received very little media coverage, article prose is almost nonexistent, and its charting situation is very minimal, basically it failed all criteria of WP:NSONG. ALittleButterfly15 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Music-related AfD discussions. ALittleButterfly15 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 09:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Connection (affine bundle)

Connection (affine bundle) (edit | talk | history | 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 Affine bundle because the article is a long-standing stub with a single source and the subject is likely not notable enough to merit its own article. However, there are complications. I originally set this article for WP:PROD because it is a stub written almost entirely by a single editor in 2013, and it appears to be copied near-verbatim from a single source from around the same time, itself seemingly written by the editor (though there is no reason to doubt its legitimacy). Thus there are elements of WP:SELFCITE and WP:NOR if not WP:PLAG. Nonetheless, it probably should have a place somewhere on Wikipedia because it is cited by a number of other articles, mainly those on physical theories using this mathematical construction. (Many of those articles were also largely written by the same editor and cite his work, so may have similar issues, but they generally have additional independent sources.) Adkbeckett (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Physics. Adkbeckett (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Unless @jraimbau or anyone else objects, I will perform the merge to Affine bundle in the next few days, probably Monday. I will also try to deal with some of the issues raised, including adding something about principal connections on an affine frame bundle. Adkbeckett (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment i think Connection (principal bundle) would make a slightly better target. In any case; i am all in favour of Merging given the state of the article. jraimbau (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I suggested Affine bundle as the target of the merge since, as currently written, the article does not use the language of principal bundles (despite the lead mentioning it, the body only mentions the link via affine frames as an aside; no doubt this should be expanded and further emphasised in any case), and the articles linking to it largely use similar terminology and notation as the current article, although some e.g. Affine gauge theory also talk about the affine frame bundle perspective in a bit more detail. Adkbeckett (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 06:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Kawan Kasoor

Kawan Kasoor (edit | talk | history | 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 film has no critic review after its release which Clearly makes the Article not meet WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. WP need 2 or more critic review for notability but this film doesn't have one. User:Ronit creator talk— Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I have come across very few reviews of Bhojpuri-language films, and I could not find any reviews of this film either. If the lack of reviews is considered sufficient reason to nominate this page for deletion, then a significant number of other pages in this category would also nominate for the deletion.--PQR01 (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Other articles existing is not a valid reason for deletion. The fact that you, the article creator, cannot find sufficient sourcing to justify inclusion makes this a delete from me, unless it is proven to the contrary. Sycerion (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Cannot find any reviews. Lack of reviews is a valid reason for deletion, unless there are some other considerations that justify the existence of the page, and I see none here. If there are almost no notable movies in this language, then we can cover them in lists such as List of Bhojpuri films, but this film is not mentioned there as of now. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 06:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: As indian I knew in India have bollywood and bhojpuri cinema play key role in entertainment specially in North India bhojpuri films leads film industry. This film Even not regional. If we review Film script, director, and actors all have authentic background and have already wiki article so why not this page keep. Best J. Ansari Talk 16:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  The director and actors (except the lead) have no Wikipedia articles themselves. This doesn't mean that the movie is not notable, but it can be a proximate indicator of its non-notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Birds on the Wing

Birds on the Wing (edit | talk | history | 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 television programmes broadcast by the BBC due to a lack of sources. Emcgonigle (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. Emcgonigle (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Campbell, Patrick (1971-06-17). "Reviews: Bird on the Wings". The Stage and Television Today. No. 4705. p. 11. ProQuest 1040375074.

     The review notes: "Judged by this yardstick alone, Birds on the Wing is likely to be a resounding success. Peter Yeldham, who has written the series from his own stage play, is not a comedy scriptwriter in the accepted sense: ... At the same time the pace of direction and the timing of performance were more those of comedy and this, in fact, is what the episode turned out to be. And by the time this had been established, the author was indulging in lines far more apposite to the mood, of which Charles Jackson's "What are you? Some sort of professional virgin? " is the best example that springs to mind. The storyline hardly taxes the intellect. ... Graeme Muir has retained all his old skill for producing material of this nature. He will need it all if the remainder of this series is to live up to the promise given by the latter part of Friday's episode."

  2. "Viewing tonight: Flesh-pot fun — and con-girls". Southern Daily Echo. 1971-06-11. Retrieved 2026-09-28 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Richard Briers, Julia Lockwood and Anne Rogers are the stars of a new comedy series "Birds on the Wing" which begins on BBC-2 to-The two actresses play Samantha and Elizabeth, a couple of beautiful and elegant young women whose ambition it is to live well in the fleshen Who without doing too much work. ... In the first episode we meet them in springtime in Rome. As they walk across the foyer of a luxurious hotel all eyes ollow them. At the same time in another part of the city an equally elegant young Englishman Richard Briers) is leaving in his Rolls-Royce to meet Elizabeth. He plainly has designs on Elizabeth, hut Samantha and Elizabeth plainly have designs of another kind on him. The series is written by Peter Yeldham and is based on his stage play of the same name, which was produced in the West End last year."

  3. "Critics: In the Aldwych tradition". Liverpool Daily Post. 1971-06-12. Retrieved 2026-09-28 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "Peter Yeldham's new BBC-2 crime comedy series, Birds on the Wing, started brightly in Rome with Julia Lockwood, Anne Rogers and Richard Briers all set to capture the gullible on a European confidence trickster tour. The idea of two fashionable girl crooks gliding through posh hotels and finding that their first intended male dupe was himself in the con game, with themselves as proposed victims, was gayly maintained by lively dialogue and the pace of a Brian Rix farce. It was old fashioned in the way that the Aldwvch farces are old fashioned."

  4. "Fair dinkum show from not only but also..." Nottingham Evening Post. 1971-06-18. Retrieved 2026-09-28 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Last week, in the first episode of Birds on the Wing. Elizabeth and Samantha, a pair of charming and elegant confidence tricksters, added their first intended victim. the smart soung Chariie Jackson to the team and set out to find suitably rich and guiltbie pres In this week's episode of the comedy series on BBC-2 at 9.20 the trio return to London after successtul coups in Athens and Vienna to catch a Member of Parliament who has something to hide. All goes well until their getaway plane is fogbound at London Airport. Richard Briers, Julia Lockwood and Anne Rogers are the stars."

  5. "'Ass'—but smart all the same". The Bolton News. 1971-06-18. Retrieved 2026-09-28 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Richard Briers has built himself a very successful career playing Wooster "silly ass" parts. ... As Charlie Jackson, rich and elegant young Englishman, he was intended as the first victim of two pretty girls determined to live the good life without too much work. But Charlie wasn't as simple as he looked and in tonight's story he teams up with the girls, Anne Rogers and Julia Lockwood, still in search of suitably wealthy and gullible prey. The series is written by Peter Yeldham and is based on his stage play of the same name which was produced in the West End year."

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

  Cunard (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's sources....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Per Cunard, this has significant coverage. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Treams

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

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

Redirect to T-matrix method#Software: Fails WP:GNG; the independent sources (not written by Rockstuhl, who developed the software) that mention treams that I could access do not contain significant coverage of the software; they only briefly cite it or just note that it was used in their experiments. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Physics and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Overall, I'm not completely sure, if it should stay here or be redirected. I wouldn’t probably mind moving the article to the T-matrix page, while keeping the detailed description of its capabilities, since for users these may be more important than the method itself. Posolubile (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Rick Devens

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rick Devens
• Articles for deletion/Rick Devens (2nd nomination)

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

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

Let's reiterate what Trailblazer101 said in previous AFD:

The individual themselves has not been proven notable outside of these two reality shows he has participated in, one of which remains ongoing. No real encyclopedic value to justify a whole article on the subject at this time.

I can't help wonder whether we're giving this potentially non-notable Survivor contestant and news anchor a free pass just because he won Big Brother. Indeed, is he better known as a Survivor player who redeemed himself on Big Brother, or is he notable for only the Big Brother win, despite his past credentials, part of himself the whole primary source? If the latter, should redirect to Big Brother 28 (American season) then, his winning season to this date. Please don't tell me that the uniqueness of Survivor: Edge of Extinction makes him more notable, do you? WP:inherent notability essay warns us about that. Well, I'm citing WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E.

I'm also worried about the (automatic?) trends of notable (should've used quotation marks, shouldn't I?) reality TV players, like Jeremy Collins and Tyson Apostol, losing in their own debut appearances but then redeeming themselves in one of later appearances, unlike non-notable Aubry Bracco (now redirected to Survivor 50: In the Hands of the Fans) and Mike "Boogie" Malin (now redirected to Big Brother 7 (American season)). Perhaps I'm using the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument sarcastically, huh? George Ho (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Journalism, News media, Television, Georgia (U.S. state), and Virginia. George Ho (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I would say it's very obvious that Rick Devens is better known as a Survivor player because that's the show where he made his game show debut. It's true that the uniqueness of Survivor: Edge of Extinction making him more notable doesn't automatically warrant an article, but that's not all that he did in that season. He ended up winning 4 individual immunity challenges and was able to find 3 hidden immunity idols throughout the season. Two of the idols that he played in were memorable tribal councils. In the episode 11 tribal council, Rick Devens ended up playing an advantage menu by Ron Clark, which actually expired back in day 9. He was able to find an idol during that episode and he was able to play it on himself while exposing Ron and Julie Rosenberg. At the final 5 tribal council, Lauren O'Connell and Julie Rosenberg would end up playing fake immunity idols (which they didn't know were fake). Those fake immunity idols were actually created by Rick Devens, which made for great television. In that same tribal, Chris Underwood played an idol on himself and Devens played his idol on Gavin Whitson (Devens had immunity that round, so that's why he didn't play it on himself). He would go on to lose against Chris Underwood in the fire-making challenge.

  In season 50, he actually aligned himself with Christian Hubicki and together they were able to plant a fake immunity idol at the beginning of the season right as they were leaving a tribal council. That move would come in handy later on when Rick Devens would publicly pull out the fake immunity idol in front of everyone during the double elimination to keep himself and Aubry Bracco safe. And that was crucial by the way because he was the target. There was also the MrBeast beware advantage where Rick Devens volunteered to flip the coin because he knew he was in trouble. If he correctly guessed where the coin would flip, he would have immunity, an idol, and would double the grand prize from 1 million to 2 million. If he guessed wrong, he would have been automatically. He ended up guessing correctly and it was a big moment.

  In Big Brother 28, Devens actually had a pretty good standing throughout the season. He aligned himself with fellow Survivor 50 player and Survivor 45 winner, Dee Valladares along with Big Brother 26 alumni Angela Murray. Devens had a number of alliances, but there were three significant alliances that he was in that impacted his game. The first alliance was "The Red Corner", which consisted of Dee, Devens, Kamu Kirk, Haley Thogmartin, and Chuk Anyanwu. The second alliance was "The Crossovers", which consisted of Dee, Devens, Angela, Barrett Pfeiffer, and Drew Campbell. The third alliance was the 8-person "Toolshed" alliance: which was just the combination of the other two alliances mentioned. Devens was the second person who got voted into the BB Time Capsule, where we was able to win the Diamond Power Of Veto, which allows him to pull someone off the block and name a replacement nominee instead of the current Head of Household. He used it on Yash Patel's first HOH and successfully backdoored Kamu Kirk. During Dee's second HOH, she was able to convince Yash Patel to accept her BB Bribe (which was $5,000) in exchange for keeping her, Angela, and Devens safe for his next HOH, which came in handy at the final 7. During Drew's HOH, Devens volunteered to be a replacement nominee to make it easier for him, which paid off because he won the blockbuster. He also won the blockbuster on Barrett's HOH and the Power of Veto during Melody Morris' HOH, which were crucial for him. He won the final HOH and took out Drew and won by a 6-1 vote against Taylor Brown because he had a really good speech and played a really good game. He almost got a perfect game with no elimination votes against him and was only 1 short of a unanimous jury.

  I'm sure there is a lot more that I missed from each of these seasons, but my point is that Rick Devens is notable enough to warrant him his own article. He will forever be remembered as being the first Survivor player to win Big Brother. PFFJamesNguyen (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Rick Devens is not notable for one event, he was a central figure in 2 seasons of Survivor and the winner of Big Brother 28. Both massive flagship franchises for CBS. He is by definition not a one-event subject. Every season of reality television that Devens participated in, he generated huge amounts of media coverage, including game analyses, exit press, and mentions in major entertainment publishers such as Entertainment Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter. I wish I was more familiar with Wikipedia policy to cite what I'm going for here, but I do believe that Rick Devens can't be considered notable for only one event.

Following from the fact that Rick Devens is notable for both Survivor and Big Brother, how can an accurate redirection target be chosen? A reader researching Devens' run on Survivor would be wrongly directed to the page for Big Brother season 28. A single page for Rick Devens is necessary to keep up with his near decade long reality television career. Coltyn1234 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Leaning keep – Devens was already bordering on notability as a Survivor player, but his Big Brother win solidifies notability. The article looks good right now, there are enough reliable sources with enough coverage to prove notability. There's several other Big Brother winners with articles who I'd support deleting before this one. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep not a BLP1E - Survivor, Big Brother, decent coverage, good sources. any form of redirect or merge would be massively awkward Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• I'll withdraw this nomination for now since the whole consensus has set the bar... perhaps low, IMO, for returnees. (Not too low for Bracco and Malin.) George Ho (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

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

National English School, Kolkata

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/National English School, Kolkata
• Articles for deletion/National English School, Kolkata (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/National English School, Kolkata (3rd nomination)

National English School, Kolkata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

2 previous AfDs were not consensus. Except for the Times of India article, the sources are primary or directories. A search in google news yielded little. Fails NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete — Found another useful TOI source....but it turned out to be non-independent....won't count towards SIGCOV. And the present sourcing is insufficient to sustain a standalone article. Ping me if more sources are located. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 19:58, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Found three articles by The Telegraph, about parents protesting low grades and celebrations of anniversaries in 2012 and 2025. ToI source from the article. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Lean keep per the sources attached by Kelob2678. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Lean keep on the same premise. It's close but that's why we have policies like WP:TWOSOURCES (yes I'm aware that particular link is an essay, it's still the GNG)

  CSGinger14 (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The balance is towards keep at the moment but participation has been low enough that a relist seems appropriate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: The sources User:Kelob2678 has shown are not notable enough to warrant standalone article. They still don't meet the relatively higher standards of WP:NSCHOOL we have now. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Of Kelob2678's sources above, the first is largely an interview of relevant parties, the second and third are odd shortish semi-promotional reports on school productions, and the fourth has obvious promotional language (are speeches ever "enthralling" and "delightful" in such a mundane context?). I should note, too, that the second source was apparently conducted in association with The Telegraph. Such language, especially when combined with WP:RSNOI, pushes me towards getting rid of this. Sycerion (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  The first source is about a protest; they say what the issue was and quote both sides, which to me seems like an acceptable source. Regarding the last source, flowery language is in itself not a reason to discard the source, and The Times of India is usually considered good enough for school coverage. Another issue is that this is a public school, and hence it is unlikely that they paid for the coverage. What is implicit in these debates is that there is usually a lot of local coverage of these schools if they managed to get some substantial mentions in the national press. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Interviews aren't independent or secondary coverage, and thus it can't be counted towards SIGCOV. Once those bits are removed, there isn't very much said about the school. Also, I don't think it is a public school? The article specifies a "philanthropist" founder, and that it is affiliated with an organisation of non-governmental schools. A quick Google search also seems to indicate that they do also charge fees. Thus it seems reasonably likely that the sources provided were not independent, especially with the flowery language. Sycerion (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding interviews, the relevant part is whether we can use them to add encyclopedic content, in this case, the protest and views of the parties are encyclopedic content, which means that the interview is relevant to establishing notability.

  Yes, this is not a public school. The organization you linked to just conducts tests, and the school became affiliated with it in 2005, 5 years after its establishment. Their site also says, The school should be run by a Registered Society/ Trust/Company registered under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956 or as amended and one of the principal purposes of the Society/ Trust/Company must be Educational. It must not be run for profit. The school is managed by the NES Education Group, also described as an "NES EDUCATIONAL TRUST". The ToI article is about the establishment of a new campus, and the inauguration was visited by a state minister, Partha Chatterjee, which seems like a reasonable topic to cover, and I see no reason to suspect that ToI was paid to do that. The coverage was a part of the "School is Cool" series at the ToI, so flowery language is expected. Kelob2678 (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Secondary Board High School, Cuttack

Secondary Board High School, Cuttack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All sources provided are primary except the first one which is dead. No significant coverage from google news to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Odisha. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I was able to recover the first source, but it still is a WP:TIMESOFINDIA source that is marginal at best LkL-70547 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete — The TOI source looks good but only it ain't enough to save the page. Ping me if another one or two useful sources are located. I didn't find any in additional searches. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 19:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep There was a government takeover conflict in 2024, together with the TOI in the article, this is barely, but enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:00, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Lean keep per the sources cited above by Kelob2678. Changing my previous stance of deletion. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• weak keep with 3 available sources, it is barely passing notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Mighty Mike Plays

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

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

After reviewing the sources, I feel like this article is WP:TOOSOON. Kotaku and IGN are reliable in this circumstance, however I have doubts over whether the channel itself is notable. I reason that the events and the supposed $118K bill are the primary topic of these sources. Additionally, now that the mass media are calling into question the validity of the statements claimed, I think that any attempt at any assertion made to the lasting prominence of the topic is WP:CRYSTAL. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment Generally, I think this topic is notable enough for a Wikipedia page, but not for a standalone biography. That said, Mighty Mike Plays is still probably the most plausible common name to refer to the incident where he allegedly racked up an $118k bill. Also, both of the sources on Kotaku and IGN have Mighty Mike Plays as the sole topic of the respective articles, as opposed to just a brief mention. I wouldn't necessarily say its future notability is WP:CRYSTAL. If the channel is later determined by sources to be a scam, the article can be updated accordingly. Maayaaaaa (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Maayaaaaa Given how the father's name is publicized, I don't know if the son's name should be included in any title given WP:VICTIMIZE. That's a literal child whose name happens to be used in the channel in question. TansoShoshen (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Mike's full name is not currently included in the article. Besides, RS have not picked up on the scam allegations yet, so coverage of this topic besides the brief mentions in IGN would be WP:OR. Maayaaaaa (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen: I've created a new controversy section of the article. However, since only one source has covered this so far (published a few days ago), I still don't think this is sufficient coverage to change the title to "Mighty Mike Plays controversy". Maayaaaaa (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Maayaaaaa I still don't like that title. The father's surname is reported in many sources, and it doesn't take much thought to reconstruct the child's name from the channel title and the father's name. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue to make an article on the scandal that the cahnnel was involved in and redirect this article to it Youravreageavaitor (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Should we call it "Mighty Mike Plays controversy" or "Mighty Mike Plays incident"? Those feel more neutral than "scandal". Electrum8 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

At the moment, this is WP:CRYSTAL, as coverage related to this being a scam has only been addressed on YouTube drama channels. But in the future if RS are writing additional articles about the controversy or incident that are beyond just coverage of the channel itself, then it may warrant moving in the future. However, the primary subject of the IGN and Kotaku articles is about the channel itself. Maayaaaaa (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify, I meant to say that moving the article name to "Mighty Mike Plays controversy" is currently WP:CRYSTAL, but I don't think the notability of the article as it currently stands is WP:CRYSTAL. But, if RS do pick up on the controversy aspect of it, then I would be willing to support it. Maayaaaaa (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. This is a child who is notable for a single incident. On the off chance that the whole thing turns out to be a hoax on the same level as the Balloon Boy, we can revisit the topic. — GhostRiver 19:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  @GhostRiver: There's already sourcing suggesting that this is a likely hoax. However, per WP:CONTROVERSY, and because the hoax hasn't been definitely confirmed, I'm a bit hesitant to go with the option of making an article covering it exclusively as a hoax. At the moment, having the article name as "Mighty Mike Plays" seems like the most WP:NPOV option, especially given that the coverage in IGN and Kotaku primarily discuss the channel itself, not the hoax allegations. Maayaaaaa (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, but preferably move to Mighty Mike Plays controversy or something similar. The channel itself isn't notable, but the controversy is, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Skyshiftertalk 16:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments above, but Weak Support for moving the title (at least for now). Maayaaaaa (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I have seen some of the drama over his YouTube channel myself and I am somewhat concerned about WP:SUSTAINED. No opinion at the moment, but I think it should be taken into consideration. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete All coverage is from articles published two weeks ago, fails WP:BLP1E, the subject is also 9 years old. I also doubt that the event itself is notable, and in any case, we can always wait until retrospective analysis appears. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Although the channel only became famous for his controversy,this article has coverage of reliable sources. I also cited YouTube channel in the following text: "The channel was created on June 5, 2024,[1] and Mike began uploading his gaming videos two years later.[citation needed]". VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I also found this reliable source: https://www.ign.com/articles/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-mighty-mike-plays-and-the-118000-he-allegedly-cost-his-dad VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Star Seed

Star Seed (edit | talk | history | 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 Hula Hoop (Loona song) as the article currently has massive WP:OVERLAP with the proposed merger. Three out of four sections in the article are exactly the same, making the existence of two separate articles redundant. Glitzae talk talk 05:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Music-related AfD discussions. Glitzae talk talk 05:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

SM St Joseph Papar

SM St Joseph Papar (edit | talk | history | 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:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. I am also not seeing any SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Fragile Gang

Fragile Gang (edit | talk | history | 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'm on the fence for this one, but it appears to fail WP:GNG. Evaluating the sources on the page, 1 has a passing mention of the band's existence (not WP:SIGCOV, 2 is an interview, 3 is a passing mention, 4 seems not WP:SIGCOV, 5 seems to be a good source to me, 6 doesn't appear to mention the band, 7 doesn't mention the band. With a WP:BEFORE search, I was still unable to find more proper WP:SIGCOV reliable sources. I think this fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Bungle491 (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politics, and Texas. Bungle491 (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Beto O'Rourke, who is its most notable member. Segaton (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Sources discuss this band but as a part of biographical details of Beto O'Rourke. GenuineArt (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Sign Guy

Sign Guy (edit | talk | history | 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:N. While he was a recognized face in the audience, outside of that he had no substantial involvement in any wrestling show he attended. There are plenty of fans that stand out as regulars but that doesn't make them inherently notable. Rusted AutoParts 03:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Wrestling, and Texas. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• The new article runs afoul of two nefarious POVs: the notion that someone is suddenly notable for dying, plus the notion that every fart is notable so long as it has something to do with WWE. Regardless, this nomination smacks of the sort of WP:OWN that's gone on for years with a small group of editors and the topic of recent deaths. Since it makes perfect sense to restore the redirect to Sign Guy Dudley, deletion is wholly unnecessary here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I nominated for deletion as my redirecting of the page was objected to and reverted. Rusted AutoParts 07:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep First of all, I know nothing of this WP:OWN thing thats alleged or any editors involved in this allegation. As for the response, the article meets WP:GNG for the sources covering it, some of which precede his death. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Being reported on doesn’t instantly make a person or a topic notable. There’s such thing as professional or notable fans but from what I can tell this man is by and large just known as holding signs at multiple events. He was never part of any matches, there’s career professional wrestlers who don’t even have a Wikipedia page. What makes Sign Guy distinct from the countless other recurring fans seems across multiple shows? Or the countless other fans who hold up signs? Rusted AutoParts 15:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comments While I am so sad, I knew about him during my early days as fan, I don't think it's notable. A quick search shows that reliable sources only mention him these days due to his death. No source before his death talking why it's a notable superfan. At least, Vladimir the Superfan is the subject of a documentary, but Sig Guy isn't. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Spall strength

Spall strength (edit | talk | history | 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 appears to be an LLM article creation with some typical WP:AISIGNS including WP:AIDASH and WP:AITREND (As a result, spall strength research continues to evolve at the intersection of materials science, mechanics, and data-driven engineering.). See the original submission. It hasn't had any substantial edits since article creation (mostly citation clean up, link clean up, and fixing section header casing). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or very limited merge to Spallation or Spall (as in, just the first paragraph at most). The topic is notable, but the article is too detailed for a general audience, and violates WP:NOLLM. All the sources I checked are good, but it's your classic LLM-drafted technical article: A "history" section that cites a couple of off-topic passing mentions, a grab bag of applications each sourced to a stack of primary papers, and a "current research" or similar section that reads like engineering firm PR. Yuck. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• LLM was used solely for Wikipedia formatting, not content generation. I’m not understanding your claim of over reliance on em dash use, as there is only one instance of their use in the article. Happy to concede that it gets a bit technical for a general audience, but so do many articles about niche properties (see acoustoelastic effect).
  I understand a push to merge, but looking at similar cases of a property that is behind a phenomenon (such as Fatigue limit and fatigue), makes it seem that this is not necessary. Ewint6 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, fails NOLLM. The dab link in the first revision is also telling, I find it implausible that someone would have written the LaTeX formulae with completely correct syntax but not link [[ballistics|ballistic]] correctly. This is not enough to convince me on its own, but it is an additional sign that I considered in totality with the rest of the other signs present on the page. There are some things that lead me to believe that this is probably not a wholesale generation, but the text has clearly passed through an LLM at some point. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Charles Chan (businessman)

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. Unremarkable achievements. 2 sources are dead. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Singapore. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Free Your Mind (EP)

Free Your Mind (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Anarbor#Discography because 3 of the references are promotional (Youtube/Amazon) and the other two are short reviews Emcgonigle (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Arizona. Emcgonigle (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Anarbor (album)

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

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

I propose redirecting to Anarbor#Discography because all four sources are short, and announce the album coming out but don't cover the album. Emcgonigle (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Arizona. Emcgonigle (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Legare Furniture

Legare Furniture (edit | talk | history | 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 since 2010. I cannot find any independent coverage that comes close to being substantive, with the only articles I can find being WP:CORPTRIV. I also can't find substantiation of the co-founders names in reliable sourcing. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Texas. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete, I sometimes find coverage of lesser-known American businesses on Newspapers.com but my search turned up almost nothing. I did find a routine article in a trade publication . Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep vote relevance — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTardelli (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ben Walker (firefighter)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO. I cannot identify sufficient significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability for a standalone biography. Much of the article relies on primary, self-published, affiliated, directory/profile, or otherwise non-independent material, while a number of independent sources concern events with which the subject was associated rather than providing significant coverage of the subject himself. The article contains extensive CV/profile-style biographical material, promotional language and synthesis, but these are secondary to the underlying notability issue. TomOvHell (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. TomOvHell (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that some language could be subjective and an edit would be welcomed, but...

Walker is the author of a series of textbooks that have been utilised by Firefighters worldwide and he has been an impactful figure in increasing the knowledge and education of firefighters globally as well an international advocate for that https://pavpub.com/fire/compartment-firefighting-series-books-1-2-3?srsltid=AU7gw4XGD4AGwaOGMRaTtDk3czcCCrSFBmHBfaIEEVkzKhuMUt6O8g6e A pivotal figure in that profession with a notable history.

There is national newspaper coverage in the UK from credible sources (Daily Telegraph- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/17/whistleblower-fire-chief-suicide-note-police-protection/ on Walker's role as being a claimed whistleblower on institutional corruption and recipient of death threats.

Walker was also falsely accused and unlawfully charged with harassment by the suicide fire chief Wayne Brown https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39vjl4xeymo- later found to have been committing a multi-million pound fraud, resulting in a UK Secretary of State Home Office ordered inquiry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vr28vvle2o

Walker's voluntary reinstatement of the charge and forcing the Crown Prosecution Service to enter nil evidence and acquit is notable and was covered on the British Broadcasting Corporation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8kx2554k1o as is his claimed Postgraduate Diploma in Law from the University of Law and current status as a Bar Practice Training student

These are non-exhaustive examples of national media coverage of the subject, and the forthcoming publication of a government commissioned report into the circumstances "Best Value Inspection into West Midlands Fire" makes Walker a figure of note topically in the UK far beyond a Firefighter or Lawyer. Alfred Tozer (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject appears to be notable given what Alfred Tozer posted above. I did my own search and found the same sources. The current article's sourcing leaves something to be desired. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Benjamin Walker(firefighter)is a noted whistleblower. References are accurate.

DTardelli