Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

4 October 2026

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

Guide to deletion

Budhanilkantha School

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Budhanilkantha School
• Articles for deletion/Budhanilkantha School/Cultural traits and quirks
• Articles for deletion/Budhanilkantha School (2nd nomination)

Budhanilkantha 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)

There are not enough independent sources WP:SIGCOV to constitute WP:GNG. I also think the organization is solely based on their Notable Alumni section; I want to make it clear that notability is not inherited, WP:NOTINHERIT. Also, it doesn't qualify for WP:ORG. Nirvana869976 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related AfD discussions. Nirvana869976 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would like to request editors to check for in-depth independent sources rather than 2 lines of trivial mentions while making their !vote. Nirvana869976 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Covered in this paper. Some controversies. Articles written by alumnis, but published in mainstream Nepali press that treat the school rather critically. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hamid-Reza Ashtianipoor

Hamid-Reza Ashtianipoor (edit | talk | history | 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:NFILMMAKER. Found some Iranian news on a quick Google search, but not sure about the reliability of the local sources. Would be happy if someone points out some SIGCOV with RS. Or else, it fails GNG either. Htanaungg (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. Htanaungg (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – filmography databases and profile pages are not the significant coverage WP:BASIC asks for. Kukuryza (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment He has an entry in Cinema Iranica, but I cannot open the PDF. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Quarter Century Wireless Association

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Quarter Century Wireless Association
• Articles for deletion/Quarter Century Wireless Association (2nd nomination)

Quarter Century Wireless Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

My source search (regular Google, Google News, and Google Books) only led me to three "arrl.org" sources (the ones in the article), and two books which only mention the name in passing. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Organizations. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for checking. I have been working to improve the article and agree that the key issue is whether there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, rather than the amount of material published by QCWA itself.

There is at least some independent historical coverage beyond the organization’s own website. For example, ARRL published a dedicated article on QCWA’s 75th anniversary that discusses the organization’s founding in 1947, its chapter development, historical membership, and activities. ARRL has also independently documented QCWA’s cooperative relationship with ARRL and other QCWA activities.

I also found a larger historical print record that does not appear to have surfaced in the initial search. The January 1990 issue of WorldRadio contains a substantial article titled “What is QCWA?” discussing the organization’s 1947 formation, its initial organizational meeting, 54 charter members, expansion beyond New York, the establishment of the Cleveland chapter in 1951 and Chicago chapter in 1954, membership growth, and organizational purposes. The October 1995 issue of WorldRadio also contains substantial historical coverage of QCWA’s founding and chapter development, and earlier issues contain additional material concerning the organization’s history and membership.

I recognize that WorldRadio carried a regular QCWA column and that some of that material was written by QCWA members or officers, so I am not suggesting that every item should automatically qualify as independent significant coverage. However, it does show that there is a considerably larger historical print record than is apparent from a standard web search, and I think those archives warrant further review.

There is also historical material in the Proceedings of the Radio Club of America and in RCA’s institutional history, as well as additional ARRL reporting from multiple years concerning QCWA, its leadership, activities, and relationship with the broader amateur-radio community.

Since QCWA was founded in 1947, a significant portion of relevant coverage predates modern web publishing and may exist primarily in archived print publications. I am continuing to search older amateur-radio magazines, books, newspapers, and archival sources, while distinguishing independent secondary coverage from QCWA-authored or affiliated material.

I would appreciate editors taking the historical print record into account before reaching a conclusion.

Qcwa (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this is almost certainly the same subject as the first nomination from 2006 that ended in deletion (and with low participation for that era); obviously the potential sourcing (even for a subject around since 1947) has not improved in 20 years (and this iteration of the article has been around since 2007, not all that long after the first nomination). No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  The 2006 deletion does not establish the outcome of the present discussion. Notability is assessed from the sources available and identified now, and the earlier discussion reportedly had limited participation.

  The assertion that sourcing “obviously” has not improved is also premature. A dedicated ARRL article discusses QCWA’s founding, historical membership, chapter development, and 75th anniversary, while additional print-era coverage has been identified in WorldRadio. QCWA’s historical records also indicate that its historian maintained a collection of older books, papers, photographs, and other materials, some intended for scanning and publication.

  I agree that QCWA-authored records cannot establish notability and that each publication must be evaluated for independence and depth. However, the prior deletion and the article’s age are not substitutes for examining the presently identified sources under WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:BEFORE. The print-era record should be reviewed before concluding that adequate coverage does not exist. Hamradio007 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep. From an IA search, there's quite a lot of reporting about QCWA in amateur radio magazines worldwide, sustained over the nearly 80 years it's been around, but it tends to be brief. For example: QST and CQ reported on its first meetings in 1948; very short mention in QST in 1950; Radio Electronics in 1952; RSGB Bulletin in 1961; the book So You Want To Be A Ham in 1968; Popular Electronics in 1980; Radiosporting in 1986. A 1977 editorial in 73 is the most in-depth piece I found. Certainly enough to source its history and growth in membership, and some of the activities it's been involved in -- contributing to development of amateur radio licensing in the US, offering scholarships -- but it'd be nice to see a more in-depth discussion of its history (maybe someone should write one for the anniversary next year!). Adam Sampson (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Adam, thank you — this was very helpful. I went back through the article and incorporated the archival sources you identified, including the 1948 QST and CQ coverage, the later references in QST, Radio-Electronics, RSGB Bulletin, Popular Electronics, and Radiosporting, Robert Hertzberg’s So You Want to Be a Ham, and the 1977 73 Magazine editorial.

  I also cleaned up the citation formatting so the periodicals are cited as magazine sources rather than books, and added a new Historical coverage section to document the sustained published coverage over the decades.

  Your suggestion to look beyond readily searchable web sources and into the Internet Archive was excellent and materially improved the article. I appreciate you taking the time to do that research and point me toward those sources.Hamradio007 (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Foresight Linux

Foresight Linux (edit | talk | history | 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. There are no independent sources. Most of the content is unsourced. The only independent sources are about its discontinuation Mdggdj (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: see this thread at the Administrators' noticeboard. Amitie 10g (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

That link does not lead to a valid header; this link to that discussion should work (even after it archives). (No opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Although the article lacks of independient source, it has a source from Ars Technica. Lack of independient sources can be resolved by finding sources rather than deleting. Amitie 10g (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

That presupposes that such sources exist. Merely implying that they might is not a valid 'keep' rationale. If you wish the article be kept, go find them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about Ars Technica, the source is available at Internet Archive. The cite needs to be updated. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the sources that you implied could be found. Sources, plural, as WP:N specifies. Though even an actual verifiable citation to an archived version of the specific Ars Technica article would be a start, given that you are claiming that it may help demonstrate notability. What exactly is preventing you from providing actual citations? AndyTheGrump (talk)

While we certainly prefer that sources be found over deletion when possible, as sources not currently in the article can contribute to notability, we also prefer that we actually know what those sources are over merely suggesting they exist. (No opinion on whether that is the case here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I've actually taken the time to look for sources, and can't really find anything that would meet WP:N. There are brief reviews, but most do little more than describe the very basics of what is after all just another in a multitude of Linux distro's, with little to distinguish them from their contemporaries. We already have List of Linux distributions, and expanding the entry there (which currently doesn't even cite a source, and fails to give any indication of its release and discontinuation dates) would be far more useful to place it in context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – on the Ars Technica source raised above: it is one entry in that site's 2008 year-end Ovatio Awards round-up, an award blurb rather than coverage of the distribution, and the Softpedia link is a shutdown notice. Everything else is the project's own site, the rPath wiki and a Gmane mailing-list post (WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG). Kukuryza (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Ars Technica is good enough as it contains more than WP:100WORDS on the subject and contains independent analysis. There is also additional coverage, some labeled as reviews. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

See the note at the top of WP:100WORDS: This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. An obscure essay only edited by a dozen or so contributors is of no real significance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Python Paste

AfDs for this article:

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

Python Paste (edit | talk | history | 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. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: see this thread at the Administrators' noticeboard. Amitie 10g (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2010, possibly due to the lower standards of the era, but also seemingly based on identified sources that still aren't in the article 16 years later. The second nomination from 2022 was a procedural follow-up to an IP's PROD (which was invalid because of the first nomination), and ended as "no consensus" for attracting no further participation (owing to the prior AfD and its "keep" consensus). Of note, that IP PROD had more-or-less the same rationale as the current nominator, which may be of note with regard to the AN discussion (the prior link to it was invalid); another IP tried a second PROD with more-or-less the same rationale shortly after that second nomination, which was outright declined without any follow-up. That "no consensus" was not enough to resolve the tag for potential NPRODUCT failure in place since 2021. (No opinion on any of this.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Galle Grid Substation

Galle Grid Substation (edit | talk | history | 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 WP:NBUILDING, infrastructure assets have no inherent notability. Sources don't provide significant coverage of subject to meet WP:GNG - they merely mention it in passing rather providing in-depth coverage. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Commenting as author. 1 - Galle Grid Substation is the country's first-ever utility-scale battery energy storage system. 2 - 10MW is huge in Sri Lankan energy industry, we have standalone power plant articles with a much smaller nameplate capacity. 3 - Grid-connected BESS facilities have their own articles on Wikipedia. 4 - Ignoring BESS altogether (and the huge news coverage of Sri Lanka's BESS rollout), the substation is one of approximately 10 that make up the primary backbone of the national grid. Rehman 14:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  You haven't addressed the core issue here - how does this article meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability? Please show how it meets WP:GNG requirement to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Obi2canibe (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• I've just pulled autopatrolled from Rehman for this article, which the WP:AIREDCAT (since helpfully fixed by @User:Bearcat) suggests is yet another WP:NOLLM violation, after they were previously warned repeatedly about Electricity Generation Lanka. That aside, this article currently cites an uncredited press release, a promotional news article without a byline, and a promotional opinion piece by Gagan Bulathsinghala, a Sri Lankan government official. None of these meet the bar of counting towards the general notability guideline, so I have to !vote to delete. Toadspike [Talk] 13:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Comment, I believe this to be AI-generated per the signs mentioned by Toadspike above and my previous interactions with Rehman. The sourcing is also not great and don't show SIGCOV meeting the GNG guidelines. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Toadspike and Gurkubondinn. I have now updated the article with additional references which highlights the significance of the Galle BESS. I have also courtesy pinged on WT:ENERGY so folks there can shed some light on the significance of grid-connected BESS. I also want to emphasize that this was not created with AI. Cheers, Rehman 15:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Of the new sources, nearly all have no byline – similar to WP:RSNOI and WP:RSNON, this may indicate that the article was paid or is simply a recycled press release with little to no editorial review or fact-checking. The only one that looks good is . This one has a byline, but it appears to be a one-person outfit with no editorial review , so not an RS. This still leaves us around two sources away from the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 08:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Not directly relating to the subject of this AFD, but: Newswire, Newsfirst, Independent, Daily FT, etc, are the largest/leading English-language news providers in Sri Lanka. Why they don't use bylines in their news articles is not something I can comment on. Rehman 11:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:22, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

List of British Asian artists

List of British Asian artists (edit | talk | history | 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 list is arbitrary and does not pass the notability threshold of WP:NLIST. In the UK, British Asians usually refers to people of subcontinental origin. If you say "he is Asian" to British person, they picture a person of Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan or Bangladeshi origin. The category of "British Asian" applied to all of Asia is not reflecting anything that any contemporary British person recognises as a coherent category, which is why, unlike for British Chinese or British Asian (subcontinental) there are no sources that treat "British Asian" (continental) as a category. At the limit, sources which cover artists with origins from the subcontinent, China and further east may exist, though I have never personally seen any.

There is a census category of "British Asian/Asian", which includes the options "Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Chinese/any other Asian please describe". However, people from West and central Asia do not consistently use this and a separate "Arab" category exists outside of Asian. Turks, Iranians and eastern Russians will usually, though not always, tick "White other" or "any other ethnicity". Boynamedsue (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Visual arts, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Hi there. I'll briefly explain my reasoning for creating the page. I came across the List of Black British artists some months ago while research one project, and, separately, more recently, was exploring the British Asians page to look for info about an Asian artist I had in mind. I noted that the section on arts in the latter page was lacking, and thought that a way in which this section could be enriched, without becoming over long, would be to direct to a stand-alone page. I chose "British Asian" as it is a census term. If folks wanted to make a list or article about British Iranian, British-Russian, artists (or theatre makers, writers, etc etc), then that seems like a splendid idea if separate to the aims of this list/ category. I have added some wording to the top of the list to explain the (imperfect, by many measures, but a definition nonetheless, which accords with census use).

EDIT: in addition, I would note that "British Asian art" or "British Asian artist/s" is legible in an art history context, and as a wider cultural term which does have coherence, to discuss artists/makers of Asian descent. See eg. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/arts-and-culture/commission-diversity-public-realm/london-unseen-heritage-tours-and-trails/london-unseen-meet-our-guides/british-asian-visual-art-post-cool-britannia; https://www.museum.manchester.ac.uk/galleries/south-asia-gallery; https://www.vice.com/en/article/where-are-all-the-british-asian-artists-623/; https://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/2025/03/11/Chai_Shai_FINAL.pdf; https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/39107/; https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/33853/; https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711436356; https://www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526128737/9781526128737.00008.xml etc. Medievalfran (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I think the articles you've posted kind of prove my point. All but one of them relate to South Asian communities alone, only this one relates, as I suggested we would find, to both South Asian and East Asian Britons (but not West Asian, Central Asian or Southeast Asians).Boynamedsue (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - "British Asian" is a vague term that really isn't defined outside the Office for National Statistics. Looking at the list is seems to be mostly modern/contemporary artists. A better grouping is the article for The Other Story (exhibition). Heavily referenced in this list, but uses the definition Afro-Asian Artists in Post-war Britain. WP:TOOBROAD unless much more time is spent defining this group with RS. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as a navigational list. British Asian is a well-defined category, because this is how these people are classified by the ONS. If the sources separate East Asians and South Asians, then the article can be reworked to reflect this split instead of being deleted. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Mingle Media TV Network

Mingle Media TV Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. All of the references are either reviews, PR launderers, or don't mention the company at all. Additionally, it seems that the website itself leads to a gambling company. Nighfidelity (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Websites. Nighfidelity (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: The user who created it in 2011, @MMTVN, might be the company themselves. Nighfidelity (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: the article is minimally-changed enough since 2011 to lead me to believe the gambling site probably usurped the subject's own expired website (and that the entity is defunct, which is not a reason to delete a notable entity but can help affirm a non-notable subject will remain that way). This has been tagged as a potential GNG failure for a year. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – the only citation that resolves is an award-nomination announcement on the now-defunct Indie Intertube; the remaining links are a personal blog and the company's own site (WP:NCORP). Kukuryza (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Marguerite Leduc

Marguerite Leduc (edit | talk | history | 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 France at the 1960 Winter Olympics#Alpine Skiing because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only reference in the article is a database, and nothing elsewhere indicates any notability for this subject. Let'srun (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into (and create) an article on the Leduc sisters. Leduc was part of a famous family of French skiers, including sisters Thérèse and Anne-Marie (they are the first three sisters to compete in the same Olympic event), that received coverage. Marguerite has some SIGCOV on her own, e.g. Le Dauphine, but merging the three into an article on the sisters is also an option since all three are stubs and known for competing together. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in creating an article about the sisters, but if someone else wants to, go for it (I could see it meeting the GNG). A redirect would preserve page history in the event someone wanted to do that later. Nothing presented here provides enough coverage on its own for a standalone keep, IMO. Let'srun (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Would you support me writing such an article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  If it is properly sourced, go for it (as with any topic you want). I haven't done enough research to verify if it would be viable, but it seemingly stands a better chance than as standalone articles. Let'srun (talk) 16:41, 19 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)} 18:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances, to Leduc sisters or the equivalent. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  The article would have to be created for a merge result to be possible. In the meantime, redirecting would keep the page history until Beanie or another interested editor creates it. Let'srun (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Johanna Cranitch

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

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

Musician seemingly notable only for a few years' association with The Cranberries. Sources here are primary source Q&A interviews (, , ), a page on a Cranberries fan blog, brief trivial mentions (, , , , ) and sources that don't mention her (, ). I found one review for an EP issued under the name White Prism and one review for a full length album issued under that name, but neither is enough coverage for either or both to be notable under WP:NMUSIC, and thus I don't see a pass for Cranitch under WP:NMUSICIAN or, per the source analysis above, a WP:GNG pass. OK with a redirect to the Cranberries page, where she is mentioned and for which she seems best known. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment found this staff-written AllMusic bio for White Prism here which together with the two reviews mentioned above hints at notability so that if a standalone page is not agreed then there could be a merge in a paragraph or two at The Cranberries, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 20 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)} 18:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances, to The Cranberries. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Found two more reviews from PopMatters. If it is not kept, then redirect, as a merge would be undue. From what I see, none of her non-Cranberries work is notable, but many received a single piece of coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Puducherry

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Puducherry (edit | talk | history | 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) 02:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep per this this this and this. Just borderline enough to save the page. This article's case looks a bit different from the other JNV school articles that have been getting deleted through AfD over the past few weeks. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: for completeness, this previously survived a bundled nomination in 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Doda, which was a 43-article trainwreck that ended as a SNOW "keep". That this one has attracted a "weak keep" opinion, when the other standalone renominations of these Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya have ended in (or are headed for) near-unanimous redirection or deletion, is another reminder of why such massive bundles don't usually fly at AfD. (No opinion on the article.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: There are over 600 of these schools, each should not have a separate page, if specific reference to 1-2 schools is notable, they could be included in the main article on Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Ar1201u1 (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Bhikhari Informer. Also, there was a false report of a bomb planted in the school prior to Modi visiting the district. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Tap Global Group

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability threshold yet. Only one source can be considered an independent RS with significant coverage (The Standard). Googling didn't bring up better sources. Vgbypw (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. Routine coverage under WP:CORPTRIV only. SOFILUIZA // COMMS 14:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - they were one, if not first Fintech in EU company to get a Mastercard EU licence for a DTL in Europe - pretty big deal for industry!! ~2026-51072-69 (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep WP:LISTED company and has received coverage that is already cited in the article. ~2026-53159-97 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Eiravato

Eiravato (edit | talk | history | 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 small (7- to 10-person?) startup company that doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. In terms of the general coverage, most of what is offered (and seemingly available based on my own WP:BEFORE) is the type of passing mentions in general tech-industry/start-up outlets about funding/incubation/etc. Several of which are in the article. EG: "of 220 companies that applied for this start-up program, 15 were selected" (chronicle.lu and siliconluxembourg.lu), "several Irish start-ups help with waste management - here's 2" (Irish Examiner), "10 small startups got a grant of €50,000 at a local event - Eirvato was one of them" (luxinnovation.lu), etc. Of the coverage which does deal with the company as a primary topic, it is relatively ROTM business coverage (on funding/etc) similar to what we might expect for any other similar startup: "small company raises enough to pay 6 or 7 people for a year" (Irish Times) or "7-person company closes Blanchardstown office due to slow uptake in Ireland - moving instead to 1-person office in Luxembourg" (TheJournal and Fora.ie), etc. The claims to notability in the "recognition" section are incredibly weak: "company was one of 237 finalists (in 26 categories) that didn't win anything at a niche industry awards do" (GreenAwards.ie), "company was one of 1000+(?) others who applied and were selected for a proprietary label" (solarimpulse.com). The text of the article itself describes an otherwise ROTM small <10-person start-up company. Comparable to millions of such small companies globally. While it is great that the creating COI/SPA editor declared a connection, that doesn't override the fundamental notability concerns. (Frankly this is such a clear case that I'd have PROD'ed. Only that this has seemingly been through AfC....) Guliolopez (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland, Luxembourg, and Companies. Guliolopez (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment (article creator, COI disclosed on my user page — offering one source-focused note and leaving the assessment to uninvolved editors). I'd ask that the sources be weighed individually per WP:SIRS rather than as a group. Three stand apart from the accelerator/listing material, which I agree carries little weight: (1) the Irish Times piece is a full-length, bylined article in a national newspaper devoted solely to the company — it goes beyond the transaction to independently describe the product, target sectors and market context; (2) the Silicon Republic article is a dedicated editorial feature, not a reprinted announcement, selected and written by the outlet's editor with analysis of the company's model and strategic shift; (3) Fora/TheJournal published dedicated reporting on the company's strategic decisions, again with the company as the sole subject. That is multiple pieces of significant coverage, in independent national outlets, across several years — which is the WP:GNG/WP:NCORP threshold, even setting aside every routine item the nominator lists. The Recognition section was intended as verifiable fact, not as a notability claim, and I have no objection to trimming it. If consensus is nonetheless that WP:NCORP is not met today, I'd respectfully ask the closing administrator to consider draftify as an alternative to deletion: the company remains operational and the article can return through AfC if and when deeper coverage exists. ~~~~

  Relaxedindividual (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks coverage required by WP:NCORP, for example, The Irish Times source is about raising funds. The article was likely created with AI assistance. Oppose draftification, as the draft was declined in 2024. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)