Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

11 August 2026

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

Guide to deletion

Antioch, Van Zandt County, Texas

Antioch, Van Zandt County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search finds mostly articles about nearby Antioch, Henderson County, Texas, and only a handful of trivial mentions (example). As an unincorpoated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Delete. The only provided source does support everything in the article now, but I don't think it is enough to show notability. There might be more informtion in the actual source cited in the included reference (Mary E. Valandingham, Early Scholastic Records for Van Zandt County (Center, Texas, 1968)), but I doubt there will be much. Another independent source should be found, which I cannot find. Ajheindel (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Kirk, Bexar County, Texas

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

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search finds only a handful of trivial mentions about the railroad junction (example) and nothing about the community. As an unincorpoated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Neuse Store, Texas

Neuse Store, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search finds only a single mention with three more sentences. As an unincorpoated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Curry, Milam County, Texas

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

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search finds only a single trivial mention. As an unincorporated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Ashby, Houston County, Texas

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

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search failed to find any further sources. As an unincorporated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Cxh

Cxh (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)

Previously tagged for notability, then moved to draft, but tag removed and moved back to mainspace sourced to a completely unreliable source written by someone with the same name as the article creator. Either move back to draft until it has multiple reliable secondary sources if this is a verifiable and notable subject after all, or delete. Fram (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Also nominated for same reasons:

• Cx (Kashmiri romanisation grapheme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Jammu and Kashmir. Fram (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Oyo Mitsunobu

Oyo Mitsunobu (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 Mitsunobu reaction because I am finding very little coverage of Mitsunobu as an individual. Most of the coverage is in relation to Mitsunobu reaction, and it may be an issue of WP:BIO1E. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Torridon Hills

Torridon Hills (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 Torridon because there's a lot of commonality between the two articles. In reality the village is only really well-known because it gives its name to the hills surrounding it, although it makes sense for the overal article to be at the simpler name, hence I propose merging this into Torridon. Grinner (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Just as an additional comment, I note that this page only exists because I originally created it - I now disagree with my younger self! Grinner (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Dušan Zivlak

Dušan Zivlak (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 fulfill WP:GNG or WP:BIO Idr888 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Lists of people. Idr888 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

2026–27 Pontevedra CF season

2026–27 Pontevedra CF season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see any point in covering third-tier seasons in Spanish football. WP:NSEASONS states that "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements", which this is not. There is only precedent for covering the first and second tier, and expanding to the third tier creates a completely unmaintainable situation. The season now has sources, but they are WP:ROUTINE - of course the team will get (local) coverage as the season progresses, but that might also fall under ROUTINE. Moreover, this and many, many other seasons run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with its pure emphasis on statistics. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Richard Sprenger

Richard Sprenger (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 GNG. All presently-used sources are either down+unrecoverable or passing mentions. On a search, I've only found passing mentions, mostly in the context of Sprenger running food safety programs. Could be convinced otherwise in a WP:HEY scenario, but atm I don't think we are near sufficient sourcing to support an article. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and United Kingdom. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Tim Lake

Tim Lake (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 the WP:GNG. No in-depth significant coverage of the subject. Article looks to have been extensively edited by an SPA. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep: His notability is met by being a member of The Broadcast Pioneers of Philadelphia Hall of Fame. Hampsh1 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 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)} 04:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Calabouço, Mozambique

Calabouço, Mozambique (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 unable to find a single reference to a place named Calabouço in Mozambique, even in passing, much less in a reliable source. The original text of the article doesn't even claim it was a village, town, etc., just a "place". No indication of passing WP:NPLACE. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Mozambique. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Calabouço is a real, identifiable settlement in Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique, and its existence can be verified through geographic databases such as GeoNames. The article is currently a stub and could certainly use better sourcing, but a lack of sources in the current version is not, by itself, a reason for deletion. The article can be improved by adding reliable sources covering the settlement's location, administrative status, and local significance. Altitude Multitude (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Goenames is not in fact a reliable source: it's a mirror of GNS, nd we've found that in Africa and the far east it seems to be based on old and very dubious military maps. And it's not good enough to say "it can be improved by adding reliable sources;" until we have such sources, until we have some sign that the place actually exists, those of us who have spent the last decade dealing with these articles have not confidence that the place is real and not the figment of some mapmaker's imagination. Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Another possibility that comes to mind is that there may have been a place known by a similar name at some point in time, but the given location is so far off (e.g. as the results of a surveying or transcription error) that we aren't looking in the right place at all, and the name was recorded incorrectly as well or has fallen out of use. But if that's the case, then there's nothing left in the article which is verifiable. Omphalographer (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Places are not notable just because they exist. Yue🌙 (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• at this point, delete The mapping is a very bad sign. The coordinates given in the article have been rounded off to minutes, which is not good enough to locate a town in most areas anyway, but taking the value directly from Geonames and plugging it into GMaps produces an anonymous spot in the woods near a town which GMaps gives a completely different name for, and for which we don't have an article. Zooming out doesn't produce any other obvious candidate, and GMaps is really only good enough for verification, not good enough as a source by itself. We need a real source, and just a name and coordinates are probably going to fail verification as it is. I'm going to say that it's likely that most of these Mozambique town articles are going to fail unless someone can come up with a census or something else that we can match up with the mapping sources. Maybe these aren't quite bad enough to justify a "delete the lot and start over" approach, but so far my confidence is pretty much a rock bottom. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've actually found sources for a couple of other Mozambique permastubs (previously in URA NOV23), which makes me feel better about saying that some of these aren't actually populated settlements. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Elbert, Polk County, Texas

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

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just four sentences long. A BEFORE search failed to find any other sources. As an unincorporated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I was not able to locate any sources supporting this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - FYI - Texas has hundreds of these towns. See nav box at bottom. Do we then eliminate all of Texas as soon as each is listed? Perhaps there might be something better. How about other states? — Maile (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The goalposts of what makes a settlement "notable" keep moving, but I generally look for proof that a place ever had a population (rather than just being a crossroads with a post office). Magnolia677 (talk) 15:32, 5 :*:August 2026 (UTC)

Category:Ghost towns in the United States ...A lot of similar ones — Maile (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not we have articles on those other former towns is outside the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about whether this specific locality meets the general notability guideline. Do you have any evidence that it does? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

In the US, names on maps have been made into articles and if they have no current population they were summarily placed in the ghost town category. Maile should know that many other states than Texas have been cleaned of unsourced junk. I think over one thousand articles on so-called ghost towns have been deleted. Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Radiogad

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

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

WP:BEFORE search shows a large amount of routine coverage related to his work, much of it unbylined and some consisting of interviews. The sources are also very similar to the line of UPE articles that were previously deleted. I am unable to find a single in-depth profile on him by a credible author in an independent source. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: There are sources from 2018 to 2024; how we judge these sources are subjective but laying indirect accusations of UPE is not acceptable. This discussion aside, Jeraxmoira has tried in different ways to link me to UPE and sock puppetry. This relentless way of looking for dirt is becoming personal. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am patrolling the articles previously reviewed by SafariScribe that are now back in the NPP queue. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That’s not an issue. I have no issue with any article being deleted. I cannot remember why I created an article in 2024 but I’m quite sure there are sources from 2018 to 2024, hence probably why I created it them but trying to say I’m an undisclosed paid editor (indirectly or otherwise) doesn’t sit well with me. The next thing, there’ll be a “private evidence” against me, lol. I just don’t have any personal “issue” against you, that’s what I’m driving at. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  The second line in the nomination statement refers to Isaac Bholu and Shashicka Tyre-Hill, both of which have now been deleted. Please don't make this about yourself when it isn't. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 27 July 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 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Kenneth Baer

Kenneth Baer (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:NBIO. Has placed some op-eds, but is a mid-level political appointee and roving spokeman in U.S. politics. Provides cookie cutter quotes to news media on behalf of his clients. Lacks the WP:SIGCOV or impact to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, England, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I was doing a search for sources and discovered that we are two degrees of separation, which isn't surprising because I was a Democratic committee person for over a decade. Therefore as is my practice I won't "vote" on this matter, and will trust the process. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

*Weak Keep Profile seems notable, have few notable news sources too, yet i want more editors to cast theiur vote to make the clarity.Rainfixer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is a passing mention in an op-ed from 20 years ago. The other WaPo source is a photo. The other sources are a marriage announcement and a geneology website. None of these are WP:RS that establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete sources are OPEDs and not used for proving notability HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. While he may not meet WP:NJournalist, but the coverage generated by his published work shows enough depth to establish notability Brodska213 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• weak keep More than a few reviews for the "Reinventing Democrats:" book, , , , although the book might be more notable than the author. A redirect to the book perhaps might suffice? Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The book may be notable per WP:NBOOK, but the author isn't. So we could delete the author page and have one for the book. Longhornsg (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - He is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and I think in general as well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as we haven't kept anyone as notable for one book. His book might meet notability criteria, but he fails WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:NJOURNALIST. DylanMReed (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Alexey Vishnitsky

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

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

No reliable sources, unable to find any Mitchsavl (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related AfD discussions. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: How are the current sources unreliable? Bearian (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Presumably they mean GNG-compatible sources, which the cited ones obviously are not. JoelleJay (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Basic Google search provides wide non-trivial coverage in reliable Russian language sources, such as this and this. He is also a world champion, a European champion and two-time national champion, more than enough to qualify under WP:NSPORT. Had I been an extended confirmed user, I would have already closed this nomination per WP:NACD, there is definitely no need for AfD when we can clearly fix the problem by adding appropriate references. --Jean Mélenchon (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Jean Mélenchon, the first source is not reliable and the second is a routine result announcement that fails SIGCOV. NSPORT requires SIGCOV in IRS, achievements are irrelevant until that is met.
  If you had closed this it would have been reverted immediately and a warning logged against you for disruptive editing. You clearly are not familiar with our policies and guidelines and I would recommend not participating in any more AfDs until that is remedied. JoelleJay (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I only gave two examples which can be googled in Cyrillic letters (though the first one may be of dubious reliability), there are many more if you check. I also will try to improve the article by adding more reliable sources. Jean Mélenchon (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you agree the above sources can't be used for assessing notability, then how can you argue to keep the article? Please link in the AfD any sources that are all of independent, secondary, and reliable and contain SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - though not a strong one at this stage. I'd consider this to be significant coverage even when shorn of the interview parts, and I'd find it difficult to credit that there would not be similar press coverage in Ukrainian media around the times of his world championship wins in 2001 and 2003, though given the date, I imagine it may not be digitised or even exist online, but see WP:NEXIST. So I'm still looking. I'm not sure whether Honored Master of Sports of Ukraine counts towards WP:ANYBIO criterion one or not, and anyway I've been unable to confirm its award from an official site: the gov.ua site doesn't seem to go back further than 2022. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - The article in its current form does not have any notable sources but such sources definitely exist and can easily be added to confirm notability for Wikiepdia. EytanMelech (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – Per SunloungerFrog, looks enough to WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's not enough to assert sources for your votes to be meaningful. You really need to provide the sources and then discuss how they meet the GNG. Relisted for a source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

List of cities in Iran by province

List of cities in Iran by province (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 largest cities of Iran because WP:DUP, WP:OVERLAP, and WP:NOPAGE. Once this is merged, I will propose that the page to which this will be merged to be renamed to "List of cities in Iran". If there need to be lists of cities by province, they can be split off and put in the see also section of the main Iranian page, this page isn't needed as a middle man. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge support merging as highlighted by User talk:HerrHeulsuse. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Iran. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Higher Institute of National Defence

Higher Institute of National Defence (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 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § AFD request: Higher Institute of National Defence. I have no opinion on the actual proposal and won't watch this discussion.

This article has not cited any sources since January 2015. Does this page qualify for an AfD? Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Cambodia. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as it is a poorly sources article with no SIGCOV or GNG. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Al-Abna'

Al-Abna' (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 – The article appears to rely on later literary traditions rather than contemporary historical evidence. In particular, the claim that Persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab women is presented as an established historical fact, but I could not find contemporary epigraphic or primary evidence confirming these marriages. If reliable independent sources establishing this distinct historical group cannot be provided, the article may fail Wikipedia's verifiability (WP:V) and notability requirements. Erterian History (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Iran, and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 3 August 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 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The statement that the Abna originate from the Sasanian soldiers settling down in Yemen is mentioned in the tertiary source Encyclopedia of Islam, as I just added to the article. See also the "Al-Abna" entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica. Z 18:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those tertiary sources. However, my concern is different. The article states that Persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab women as an established historical fact. Could anyone provide contemporary primary evidence (such as South Arabian inscriptions or other contemporary sources) confirming these marriages? If not, this claim appears to rely mainly on later literary traditions and should not be presented as an undisputed fact. Erterian History (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have read your Sources. Erterian History (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have read the Sources you added, And Both Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam summarize the traditional historical narrative, but neither provides contemporary Sixth-Century Evidence (Like inscriptions or other Primary Sources)Confirming that persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab Women.

My point is not that tradition is necessarily false, but rather that, in the apparent absence of contemporary evidence, Wikipedia should Avoid presenting these marriages as an established historcial fact.

Instead, the article should attribute this account to later islamic Literary sources, unless contemporary evidence can be produced. Erterian History (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - The article meets WP:GNG. WP:TNT is not a valid way for dealing with issues raised by the op regarding the contents of the article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Article is based on WP:RS, including Clifford Edmund Bosworth, a leading scholar in Islamic and Iranian history. Both Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam have entries on this subject. Respectfully, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not our own personal deductions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification.

  I agree that the article should not present a disputed historical tradition as an established fact if the available scholarship does not support that level of certainty.

  However, I do not think the absence of surviving contemporary inscriptions or other primary evidence, by itself, establishes that the claim is unsuitable for Wikipedia.

  The Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica are reliable scholalry sources that discuss this tradition.

  The lack of contemporary primary evidence does not necessarily make the claim unsuitable for Wikipedia,as long as it is clearly attributed to later sources.

  I am happy also to change the wording so that the article does notpresent the marriages as an established fact, but as a tradition reported in later islamic sources.

  For this reason, I believe the issue can be fixed by improving the wording and sourcing rather than deleting the article.

  Do you agree? Erterian History (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Again, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not our own personal deductions. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I know that.

  But nothing I said about the explanation is incorrect; the article attributes it to later Islamic traditions. If that's not true, then give me a contemporary source? Erterian History (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, but it doesn't seem you do. You're still basing this on your personal deductions (also, it is not uncommon that later writings are treated as fact, it ultimately depends on what WP:RS says), please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  You misunderstood me. I simply said it needs clarification because the article relies on later Islamic sources. What's wrong with what I said? Give me a reason. You're calling it my opinion, but it's a logical question? Erterian History (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  You could simply write within the article that it mentions (Al-abnã in later Islamic traditions, not in contemporary sources or inscriptions.) Please don't try to change the subject; just answer the question.

  Is it illegal to add this text to Wikipedia article? Erterian History (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, I didn't misunderstand you. Please read the links I provided. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Álvaro Pintado

Álvaro Pintado (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 person appeared in the press because he founded a company at an early age (17) in 2022, but the company no longer exists. It seems this person is known only due to that single event WP:ONEEVENT and does not have sustained coverage to demonstrate notability. WP:NSUSTAINED It should also be noted that he is a Spanish entrepreneur, but his biography has been already deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia. JohnMizuki (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. JohnMizuki (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I did the NPP. IMO the sources/coverage met the norm for a kept article. I'm neutral about the result of this afd. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep generally, a major act is not considered WP:ONEEVENT (for example, someone famous for one book, one company, or one hit song) because it's a body of work or an achievement that took a while to do - plus BLP1E requires the person to be low-profile outside of that one single blip, which this guy clearly is not per: sources. Sources are also reasonably strong here. therefore, I vote keep. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterise creating an unsuccessful company that only lasted a couple of years "a major act". Also, please note that almost all sources are from 2024 and in relation to the company he founded. Is there any other achievement? JohnMizuki (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

One - the book is decidedly a separate achievement. Two, i disagree with you here, I would absolutely characterize it as "a major act". Furthermore, I see sources ranging from 2023 to 2025, not only 2024. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a self-published book on Amazon, with only 8 reviews. JohnMizuki (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Book doesn't have to be enough to meet notability itself, just enough to show he had other achievement - besides which ONEEVENT failure also requires the person to be low-profile and there's newscoverage over a long time (at least three calendar years (2023, 2024, 2025)). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Twin Cities Democratic Socialists of America

Twin Cities Democratic Socialists of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is not a significant amount of coverage of this chapter of DSA. 4 of the 7 sources on this article are either self-published by DSA or an op-ed. The others are not in-depth, significant pieces about the chapter. User:Namiba 21:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Minnesota. User:Namiba 21:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I added a couple of minor sources with some more news about the group. From what was already there, the Southwest Voices piece looks in-depth at over 1300 words. And the Minneapolis Times did an in-depth analysis of the group's platform. Mike Gauya (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  The Minnesota Times appears to be a blog or self-published site of some kind. I could find nothing about the site itself that indicates that it is a reliable source.--User:Namiba 13:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, appears to fail WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Most sources in the article are primary, routine election mentions, WP:UGC, or non-independent. The two sources noted in the previous vote are flawed: the Southwest Voices piece is a single local profile, and I would question the Minneapolis Times' reliability and it has no reliability consensous on Wikipedia. A redirect to Democratic Socialists of America would be a good alternative to deletion. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This is an active political organization. It has coverage from MPR News, Axios, and the Star Tribune, all of which are to my knowledge, reputable sources. I can agree with criticism that there are too many primary sources and not enough primary sources, but that is what the 'sources' template already on the article is. I think deleting this is unnecessary. NewYears2026 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep There is enough WP:SIGCOV for a standalone page: [] [] [] and []. Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Padmaja Venugopal

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Padmaja Venugopal
• Articles for deletion/Padmaja Venugopal (2nd nomination)

Padmaja Venugopal (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 elected politician. Fails NPOL and GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep several sources in the article provide GNG with sigcov. Additional sources such as this one also help ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - NPOL is out of the question, of course, but GNG is met: I see sigcov from The Hindu, Hindustan Times, New Indian Express, ThePrint, etc. Jishara (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I suspect this is the same subject as the first nomination from 2024 that ended in deletion, though that does not necessarily mean the issues from that iteration that led to that result are as applicable to the current version (I have no opinion on that front). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per above, article lists several secondary sources Junosang^{leave a message} 17:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 11:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NPOL doesn't apply since she's never held elected office, so notability rests entirely on WP:GNG, which isn't met. All the coverage is the routine stuff every party candidate gets, election announcements, result reports and some interview quotes. None of it is independent nor there is any in-depth writing about her specifically. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and Kerala. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: User:Thilsebatti, WP:NPOL is not restricted to elected politicians only. Her notability is well established and she has WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I would stick on to @Jeraxmoira's opinion. The coverage is the routine stuff every party candidate gets, election announcements, result reports and some interview quotes. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Dz5t 8O12 Can you show atleast three such sources which is giving her enough SIGCOV? Thilsebatti (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please refer to her existing article. It has sources from ToI, the Hindu, Hindustan times etc. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

List of films featuring domestic violence

List of films featuring domestic violence (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)

Mere list-by-title of films which fit this category, no reason to be its own page instead of a category (if it should even exist at all). No notes/commentary/descriptions are given as to how each film fits this description. Personally would support draftification over deletion if other editors are willing to work on making it a suitable list.

Note that Category:Films about domestic violence already exists- not exactly the same distinction but close. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 09:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: As has already been widely discussed in past AFD'S, categories are poorly understood by the common Wikipedia User, and are a poor replacement for list pages where such lists serve an identifiable purpose. Given the fact that it is an extremely common theme (and not so obscure as to shift to the other wiki's realm), and readers looking for the information would presumably find it useful, it should be kept. Foxtrot620 (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep possibly rename. This is an aspect of films that gives significant coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 19:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Alvin Tedjo

Alvin Tedjo (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)

Local politician that appears to fail WP:NPOL. The coverage is almost entirely local coverage about the elections for the local political position. If more sources are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify: Brand new article for a municipal politician currently running for re-election, reads like a campaign flyer... Couldn't even resist citing LinkedIn. I think we can infer where this is coming from, but we might as well draftify just to be nice... The article hasn't even been up for five hours. If no one can save it, the abandoned draft will eventually be deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Personally, I think there are probably enough reliable sources for notability, as he's not just a "local politician", as he's run for the Ontario Liberal leadership and for mayor of one of Canada's largest cities, twice. So if the article is re-written, I would be open to keep it.-- Earl Andrew - talk 00:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I created this article cognizant of the general guideline on notability. I live in next door Toronoto where every council member have an article, so it was likely presumptious for me to assume this would not be contentious. Apologies for not providing a bit more explanation in the talk page. To me Tedjo has received sufficient coverage from outlet with audience well beyond his city to clear the notability test. But I think the combination of the following would also more than satisfy the notablity requirement.

• He was the runner up of a mayoral election in Canada's 7th biggest city (re pop.) with 700K residents, pushing another contender who was a former provincial cabinet minister (thus has an article) to third place. Tedjo and the winning candidate, now the mayor, were the only candidate who won wards other than their own.
• As an elected official he represents approximately 65K residents (which is more than many politicans with an article...)
• He is contesting the mayoralty again and is considered a serious contender in the same league as three rivals all previously elected to higher orders of government
• His recent success and his distinct urban policy stances (distinct for suburban politicians) has drew media attention from outlet with regional/provincial wide audience, and some have revisited his previous audacious (or for some, presumptious, which was how I saw it) bid for provincial party leader (he was not a serious candidate then) and that fact that he was endorsed by the late Senator Hugh Segal who was chief of staff to a CONSERVATIVE Primer Minister and a CONSERVATIVE Premier

I included more press clips below, but I think this one clip from TVO may do a better job than me in explaining why he is not a nobody. TVO obviously target province wide audience, and McGrath is not one prone to puff pieces. TVO

and here are a few more clips from outlets with national or regional target audience that do not just give routine coverage to local councilllors or by default accept their op-ed: National Observer, CBC, CBC Metro morning, Toronto Sun, CTV Global News

I agree each factor individually would not qualify. But together they should. I should also note that every city councilor in the city next door Toronto have an article (I personally would question some of their notability tbh, there is admittedly a bias for Toronto, which disproportionately crowd out the immediately surrounding cities) ditto every councilor in Ottawa (on average represent only 40K residents)

I will confess that it is a bit weird for me to speak in defence of his notability, as I as an provincial scene watcher was quite dismissive of him as recently as 2020 during his bid for Liberal Party leader, seeing him as one of many young budding politicians with an outsized ego. But he has certainly since turned into a more serious politician and has proven his worth in the eyes of the citizens of one of the largest city in Canada. I would not argue for auto qualify for all Mississauga councillors, but his notability is unquestionably substantially higher than his colleagues.

And since it was "inferred" by another contributor, I will just declared that I am a spoiled Toronto city dweller with a TTC station nearby, and I have nothing to do with his or anyone's campaigns in the burbs. I just watch the upcoming slugfest with amusement and decide to start this article as he is the only serious candidiate without. (I imagine a staffer would likely focus more on this "community contribution/achievement" and downplay his earlier electoral misadvantures.) The awkeward linkedin cite was on me. I felt his OUSA past should be noted given its relevance to his subsequent employemnt with 4 universities ministers, and I dont think it is mentioned elsewhere as I imagine it is not something he or his handler would be particularly keen to to highlight.

JacobW2 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. From the search I found some reliable sources but the article can't remain up the way it's written. It is some kind of undisclosed paid editing, sourcing even LinkedIn and YouTube. MichealKal (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Matti Kärki

Matti Kärki (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 Dismember (band) because the article doesn't meet notability guidelines for biographies. Should be redirected to the band he is most known for per WP:BANDMEMBER. Mika1h (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Mika1h (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I vote Keep given he meets GNG within the metal space to have multiple interviews with notable hard rock/metal journal/news site Blabbermouth and Metal Injection - some that I found include: . And I think the [Swedish Wiki article] can serve as a source to translate from to English to meet the RS criteria as well - ABehjat (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. The Swedish media archives have lost some of the usefulness they used to have (Retriever can't access web content the way they used to, and the Royal Library has limited remote access to anything younger than 100 years old), but there's a short piece in Expressen with some minor biographic detail, like the fact that he was working as a cleaner at the age or 22 ("Vad gör du nu för tiden ...", 9 June 1995). Nothing which can carry notability on its own. Swedish Wikipedia has a couple of references to the book Swedish Death Metal (2006). I don't have access to it and can't tell how extensive the coverage of Kärki, as an individual, is. /Julle (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Meets WP:NSINGER#6 "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". But we still need coverage of the individual. Interviews are not that. Geschichte (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's interesting! I browsed through the interview by Metal Injection and noticed part of the interview covered his personal life and perhaps that would've been a source. But after reading your comment I investigated more on this and you're right, interviews are tricky to source if it's answered by the person in question. - ABehjat (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dismember (band) was hoping to find some solid secondary sources about Karki but none seen to exist at the moment. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Daniel Tay

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Daniel Tay
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Tay (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Taylor,Student

Daniel Tay (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)

Previously deleted in 2016, reinstated in 2017, has had a {{refimprove}} ever since. Of the three sources:

• Behind the Voice Actors. Reliable per WP:BTVA, which also says coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability.
• Bustle. No consensus on reliability per WP:BUSTLE.
• Hello Magazine. Possibly reliable, but very sparse.

So that's one source that's routine coverage, one that's uncertain, and one that might be reliable but still says very little about the subject.

A WP:BEFORE for "Daniel Tay" + "Elf" or "Daniel Tay" + "Doogal" turned up only routine mentions of him as an actor in the movie, or unreliable looking clickbait "where are they now" articles from unreliable-looking gossip churnalism sites. This one seems the most reliable, but I'm still on the fence as no editors are credited on the site and it's more broadly a sports website. Everything else was sketchy looking sites like "Just Jared". As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Spano proved, merely being the subject of a handful of "where are they now" gossip columns is not SIGCOV. He got no coverage for any of his roles beyond routine mentions of "Name of character, played by Daniel Tay..." Merely name-dropping someone as playing a role is not SIGCOV.

Suggest either deletion or redirection to Elf (film) as his most notable role. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• KEEP. Not sure what the reasoning is behind all this is. He was a former child actor who starred in Elf, American Splendor, The Magic Roundabout (voiced Doogal), and voice-over gaming work. Redirecting to one film (Elf) is not feasible. SIGCOV is not going to happen when it comes to a "former child actor" except on the "where are they now" coverage sites; which is still occurring for this BLP even as late as 2025 (People, E! Now, Celebrity Tonight, Celebrity News Today, Diario AS, Wales Online, Irish Star) . There is enough in this article for a stand-alone stub at WP. No, WP is not IMDB. Who said it was? and in fact, this article gives much more info than IMDB for this BLP. Last, if one wishes to "compare" article for article (Nick Spano), one only needs to peruse the List of former American child actors to see that Tay is in very good company to remain when it comes to "reason for AfD". Maineartists (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and New York. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• delete doesn't meet ACTOR for the reasons above. One role typically isn't enough and the lack of sourcing isn't helping. Already deleted a few times due to the lack of sourcing, with nothing found since then to show notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per GNG - E! Online in 2018, People in 2024, Bustle in 2020, Cosmopolitan in 2018, Glamor UK in 2016 Jishara (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

COMMENT with above and in keeping with "per conversation" confirming RS, NPR, Entertainment Weekly, Wales Online and Diario AS (translated). Google Books: Screening Text: Critical Perspectives on Film Adaptation, Real Lives, Celebrity Stories, Jon Stewart: A Biography. Reviews: NYT, NYT2. ADDED: NPR, Variety, Business Insider, Westword, Entertainment Weekly. Updated article page substantially. Maineartists (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

15 (software engineer)

15 (software engineer) (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 15.ai. Personal life section is primary sourced fluff, everything else is better covered in the website article. No indication of independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, Computing, and Internet. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Artificial intelligence, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 15.ai. No notability for a standalone article. Skyshiftertalk 12:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:BASIC; independent notability is met as the subject is a primary focus of both the articles 15.ai and Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal, both of which have plenty of sources that are not currently used in the nominated article. The article is incomplete, but the problems are entirely WP:SURMOUNTABLE. –GM 16:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal is clearly a subtopic of 15.ai, I'm not convinced it needs to be a standalone article (at the very least it needs a hatchet taken to it to pare it down from 80,000 bytes). This is not is convincing case for independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  What?! That topic is clearly not a subtopic of 15.ai. It easily passes WP:GNG, has WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a long period of time, has multiple sections and paragraphs that don't involve 15.ai at all, and has an entire Legacy section filled with WP:RS talking about how important it was in the general landscape of video games and NFTs. Why in the world would that article be a subtopic of 15.ai as opposed to, say, a subtopic of Troy Baker or a subtopic of NFT controversies? The article itself is GA quality, so I don't know where you're getting this notion at all that the article needs to be rewritten. Proposing that the nominated article and the whole Voiceverse article be merged into 15.ai is seriously baffling and raises the question of whether you actually read all of the article's sources in full (I did). –GM 00:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 15.ai cause there really isnt much to the article that isnt already discussed at 15.ai, tbh the pseudonymous nature of the individual is going to make quality blp sources extremely difficult and a lot of the sources used i think currently at least border on WP:BLPGOSSIP. i do want to also note an article about this individual was already blanked and redirected once before and i think the reasoning why is still a solid argument for the redirect today Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC) —  Ibnqirtaiba is a confirmed sockpuppet of BrocadeRiverPoems, see investigation.
• Redirect to 15.ai, the subject does not have independent notability as the majority of the sources are about the website and not the individual themselves. MidnightMayhem (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep due to WP:CREATIVE #3, subject created 15.ai which has been primary subject of multiple international independent periodical articles and more. I don't see why independent notability is important that it mandates a redirect, there does not seem to be official policy that require this. We have articles Speechify and Cliff Weitzman, who is notable for nothing outside of Speechify. Arguably Weitzman's article should be a redirect more than 15's because 15.ai's reach was much wider than Speechify. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bronymike2010 see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:NBLP. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro That's where WP:CREATIVE comes from on the same page, an additional criteria along with the regular notability criteria. Independent notability is moot because subject qualifies CREATIVE #3, warranting an article. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bronymike2010, and must also pass WP:GNG.

As GM mentions below part of the claim is WP:BLP1E Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: No, I'm saying that I disagree with the WP:BLP1E argument. The subject does pass WP:GNG. It's just a matter of improving the article, which I unfortunately cannot because I am blocked due to edit warring. Once the block is over, though, I'll make sure to improve it substantially. –GM 08:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Fully understood. I was pointing out to Bronymike2010, the rationale and policy/guidelines being cited. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: No problem. I only wanted to clarify because I saw that you were repeating the same argument above, hoping you'd reconsider. –GM 08:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What sources are you looking at that illustrate that this is not a case of BLP1E? Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: Here's a sample of multiple WP:RS showing coverage occurring at different periods for different reasons:

• Feng, Bai (March 15, 2020). "模型参数过亿跑不动？看MIT小哥，少量数据完成高质量文本转语音！" [Struggling with Models with Over 100 Million Parameters? See How an MIT Student Achieved High‑Quality Text‑to‑Speech with Minimal Data!]. QQ News (in Chinese). XinZhiYuan. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 22, 2025. (pre-2021 15.ai)
• Chandraseta, Rionaldi (January 21, 2021). "Generate Your Favourite Characters' Voice Lines using Machine Learning". Towards Data Science. Archived from the original on January 21, 2021. Retrieved December 18, 2024. (during operation in 2021)
• Wright, Steve (January 17, 2022). "Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to using content without permission". Stevivor. Archived from the original on January 17, 2022. Retrieved October 5, 2025. (Voiceverse scandal)
• Abisola, Shojobi (January 3, 2025). "The MIT Project That Paved Way For Modern Voice AI". Independent. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 27, 2025. (post-15.ai)
• Irpan, Alex (July 21, 2025). "Brony Musicians Seize The Means of Production: My Eyewitness Account to BABSCon 2025". Alex Irpan. Archived from the original on July 30, 2025. Retrieved October 1, 2025. (fandom impact and involvement; the author is a Senior Research Scientist at Google Deepmind with over 26,000 citations on Google Scholar with an h-index of 31(!), so WP:EXPERTSPS applies)

–GM 08:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:EXPERTSPS explicitly does not apply to BLPs: Never use a self-published source as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechify and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Weitzman have been nominated for deletion. Madeleine (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral/Week merge Merge/Redirect per nom and Skyshifter. I am not seeing how this subject would warrant it's own page. That being said, I would prefer a merger over a redirect, as there does appear to be some useful and encyclopedic content. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Issac I Navarro: The above arguments are essentially invoking WP:BLP1E, in that the claim is that the subject is only notable for having created 15.ai. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here. The subject is covered in connection with both having created and operated 15.ai and separately for a substantial and well-documented role in the Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal that is notable enough to have its own article. BLP1E directly states Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. which isn't true here. –GM 07:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  After reading the sources that GM has pointed out (above), I have striked my redirect. I have a very week stance on a merger due to the bio may pass WP:GNG. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Issac I Navarro: I don't think a merge is appropriate here, as it would then be grounds for WP:SPLITTING again as the 15.ai article should be focused on the website. The Background section is already long as it is and largely focuses on the technology behind what made the website unique. It wouldn't make sense to merge only to include additional information about its creator irrelevant to the website when we could easily fix it by having a separate article per WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPINOFF for this: the main situation where spinoff articles become necessary is when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article. –GM 08:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Issac I Navarro: Respectfully disagree that a merge is preferable to a redirect. Note the above blocked confirmed sockpuppet User:Ibnqirtaiba removed over half of the content originally in the article, so its current state cannot reliably be consulted as its basis. With the sources above, there is more than likely content to be added back that would not belong to potential merge targets. WP:MERGE advises against merging where the separate topics can be expanded into standalone articles, and the sourcing presented above establishes that this one can, under both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATOR criterion 3. Madeleine (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above arguments. Subject meets WP:GNG per above sources, and WP:NCREATOR makes it cut and dried. Merging is not appropriate per GM. At least one editor has expressed intent in improving the article after the AfD ends, so redirecting is less appropriate than keeping. WP:NCREATOR expressly permits coverage of a creator's significant work, rather than requiring every article to be a conventional profile of the creator; particularly important in the case of a pseudonymous creator.

BLP1E applies only when all its conditions are satisfied, beginning with reliable sources covering the person only in connection with one event. The cited coverage above spans the development and operation of 15.ai, the 2022 Voiceverse incident, and retrospective discussion of the project's influence. The sourcing signifies that this is a sustained body of work and its consequences, than a person briefly caught in a singular news event. Madeleine (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - decidedly not BLP1E - it's a creative process, which is generally not considered 1 event, in the same way that someone known for one book or one song or one company is not a BLP1E - in this case, there's a lot of coverage during and after the project on different stages of it and on the subject's work. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If 15.ai did not exist- for arguments sake- if we removed all notability inherited from involvement with 15.ai, what does this article look like? Help me understand what encyclopedic content is left if we remove any information about 15.ai? Sesamehoneytart 02:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NCREATOR (and NACTOR, but here NCREATOR)'s whole thing is that this is the way notability can, in fact, be inherited - from notable work to its creator. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NCREATOR does not give automatic inheritance. At most, it says notability is *likely* if xxx or yyy. So for arguments sake- if we removed all notability inherited from involvement with 15.ai, what does this article look like? Help me understand what encyclopedic content is left if we remove any information about 15.ai? Sesamehoneytart 17:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Every notability guideline is "likely" or "presumed" - the vagueness here is mostly for WP:What Wikipedia is not. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 15.ai#History per WP:NOPAGE. I am not seeing anything in the article or the above sources to justify a standalone biography that could expand on information not already in the 15.ai article. The struck !vote above makes a good point that being pseudonymous makes it harder to write a biographical article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Helpful Raccoon: To be fair, that very sockpuppet had removed most of the content that was present on the article and was later proven to have a personal grudge against the subject, so there was some foul play happening with the article and should not be consulted as a reliable basis. As for expanding the article, I find that the sources that discuss the subject's fandom to be sufficient to allow for its own article; additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED expressly mentions WP:NCREATOR as one of the four notability guidelines that do allow for inherited notability. Madeleine (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  bro you are straight up lying bc I removed exactly 200 bytes from the article lmaaaao skyshifter is the one who made the sweeping removals and you are definitely just a gregarious madness sock lol ~2026-43260-11 (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Are you a sockpuppet of User:BrocadeRiverPoems? Madeleine (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ignoring whether the subject meets WP:GNG/WP:NCREATIVE, the point of WP:NOPAGE is that it is not always best to have a standalone article for every notable topic. In this case, if a reader of the 15.ai article clicks a link to this article hoping to learn more about the creator of 15.ai, they will be disappointed after seeing that it does not contain any additional information. I did look at the previous version of the article. I don't see any WP:RS that discuss the subject's fandom; the Alex Irpan blog post fails WP:BLPSPS. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: A WP:HISTMERGE needs to be done with Draft:15 (software engineer). Just a note to @Madeleine961: you should use the WP:MOVE functionality to move pages out of draftspace instead of cut-and-paste moves. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

   Done, and I left a note at the original author's talk about this as well. ASUKITE 13:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to pass WP:CREATIVE and WP:ARTIST also I think it's a very odd and interesting page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep as someone who works in the same field as the 15.ai project, I can vouch that its founder is widely regarded as a pioneer ahead of his time in the field of vocal synthesis. 1.) and 3.) of WP:CREATIVE. Tacotron2 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

List of cities in Somalia by population

List of cities in Somalia by population (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 cities in Somalia because of WP:OVERLAP, WP:DUP, and WP:NOPAGE HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Somalia. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Tulip Shop Tavern

Tulip Shop Tavern (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 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Assistance needed: AfD for Tulip Shop Tavern. I have no opinion on the actual proposal.

The subject fails the fundamental requirement for "significant coverage" under WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY.

A critical review of the cited sources shows a clear lack of depth:

• The national mention in Bon Appétit is a passing, single-paragraph blurb embedded within a massive city-wide dining guide. Per WP:MULTIPLE, passing mentions and directory-style recommendations do not constitute the "significant coverage" required to establish notability.
• The rest of the sourcing consists entirely of localized routine food reviews, neighborhood listicles, and regional entertainment roundups (e.g., Eater Portland, Portland Monthly, Willamette Week). Per WP:NCOMPANY, local or regional media coverage that is routine in nature (such as standard restaurant reviews or "best burger" rankings) is insufficient to establish encyclopedic notability.

Wikipedia is not a local city dining guide. Without independent, secondary sources providing deep, non-routine, analytical coverage of this business, it lacks the required notability for a standalone article. ~2026-38416-71 (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Yet another obvious keep per GNG. It is weird a temporary account keeps suggesting these restaurant deletion nominations (most recent similar nom). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Obviously notable with national recognition and significant in-depth local recognition, awards, and so on. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Obvious keep per national and regional media coverage. more than enough. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the initial reasoning. Some "Obvious GNG" and "obvious notable" mentions above with no explanation for why it seems obvious, which makes it difficult to respond to. I agree that 41 refs is a larger number than usual, but 35 of these are local media outlets, 29 of which (sorry if I miscounted by one or two but point remains) are Best-of-Portland/burger/bar/etc lists that only mention this restaurant in passing. The New York Times ref has three brief sentences before moving on the next in a list of 25 Portland-specific restaurants. The Bon Apetit ref mentions this restaurant in passing as part of a suggested Portland road trip. The quote currently in the article is basically all the information the Bon Apetit ref has on this location. The refs I spot-checked from The Oregonian and Willlamette Week all had direct quotes from a co-owner, so it's unclear how many of these references are independent of the subject. For those who find this obviously or clearly passes GNG, which refs are we using to establish notability? Sesamehoneytart 04:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Oregonian, Willamette Week, in particular - quotes do not affect independence unless it's an interview-format article per WP:INTERVIEW. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

From WP:INTERVIEW, "A newspaper report, written by an eyewitness, recounting what they saw and heard without commentary, is a primary news source about that event". I don't mind discussing how or if it applies to a specific source, but I would really like to not have to thoroughly interpret 41 listicles. Sesamehoneytart 18:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, Oregonian and Willamette Week are in depth, and "local" isn't some negation of coverage, these are the decades-old and established main daily and weekly publications in a major city/region. That aside, getting multiple sentences in the NY Times and Bon Appetit should not be dismissed either. Either restaurants, in general, are not notable as a category of businesses, or this one is one of the notable ones. WilsonP NYC (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Much like WP, there is functionally no limit on space for online articles, so the bar for inclusion online is significantly lower. I know Wilamette Week has a paper copy, not so sure about the Oregonian- has this restaurant/bar been considered notable enough by their local newspapers to get space in the paper version of their respective outlets or are all mentions web-only articles? Sesamehoneytart 18:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation; a search for "Tulip Shop Tavern" yields at least a dozen returns in the archives. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Oregonian is a major legacy daily paper, Pulitzer Prize, paper machines on street corners, and so on. Still pretty sure this is borderline WP:SK per Another Believer WilsonP NYC (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The reliability of the Oregonian or the contents of their web page were never in question. Neither of the two above responses address the question that was asked. Sesamehoneytart 00:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a genuine WP distinction created by the discovery that an article was printed on dead-tree paper? Not an accusation I am curious as I’ve never seen that used as a source qualification method. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no universal pass/fail test for notability, but the bar for inclusion in the online edition of newspapers is significantly lower than that of the physical paper version because there is no space limitation. It's a win-win situation; business gets views and publication gets ad revenue, why would they not include a short essay on any and every business in the city? If inclusion in the web-only article for the Willamette Weekly were the same as wikipedia's standard for general notability, then we could easily justify an article on this particular rice fritter recipe. I mean, it's featured in this well-established, pulitzer prize winning publication so this rice fritter recipe is obviously notable, right? I hope that clarifies the reasoning a little more; I'm not trying to set a trap or anything. If we can't find a reference to this business in the paper version, that's not an automatic fail for notability either- that's why we're discussing it here- but if the local newspapers have not found this business notable enough to include when you have to justify use of the limited space, I don't know how we can justify notability here. Sesamehoneytart 02:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

TLDR; The number of times a business is mentioned in the web-only version of a local news source says more about their PR team than it does about their general notability. Sesamehoneytart 02:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Well no. We’d use criteria more appropriate for evaluating recipes for inclusion in Wikipedia. Which of course exists.

Conversely, by your dead tree standards we should include the details of every local car dealership promotion since they buy full page ads.

What’s that you say? Ads don’t count? Right exactly. Recipes don’t either. Actual editorial coverage of restaurants, of course, does.

But back to my question, which is what the policy is on paper vs. online for legacy printed publications. If there’s actual links on that I’m curious, I’m not finding them in a search. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm giving a shot at asking for paper news sources because asking "what specific sources are being used to establish notability?" has not worked. There's not a "No Tree, Not Notable" policy- and I hope there never is- I just figured a paper source would likely answer the question I've been trying to ask for two days: What sources are we using to establish notability? The specific policy is over on WP:ORGCRIT.

There are mentions above that "Oregonian and Willamette Week are in depth" but no indication of which specific news articles have in depth coverage. The online articles I've looked at don't meet sigcov, and some say more about Darren Polak than they do about the restaurant. You get a lot of words when you pad it out with text like "After pouring the porcelain-colored liquid over ice at home, a calming herbal aroma fills your nose as you lift the glass", which really makes me want a drink, but in terms of significant coverage, this entire reference is a description of several menu items.

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if sigcov has been misinterpreted; i.e. "number of news articles" justifying "significant coverage" rather than "significant coverage in a single resource". Sesamehoneytart 03:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused how we are not answering your question, but perhaps I should clarify by "archives" I mean Multnomah County Library's database, which I assume is based on paper-published journalism. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The clarification helps, but please provide a link so we're looking at the same information because my search shows no results Sesamehoneytart 02:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I am referring to the Oregonian archives. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment. Can keep !voters point out which sources they think provide NCORP coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Michele Anderson (criminologist)

Michele Anderson (criminologist) (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 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § AfD rationale for Michelle Anderson (criminologist). I have no opinion on the actual proposal.

The subject of this article appears to lack notability. Although they are quoted in the popular press on topics related to human trafficking, I can't find any coverage of them as a person or their work specifically. ~2026-42466-68 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Zylo

Zylo (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 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Zylo AfD. I have no opinion on the actual proposal.

Notability of this software is weak. There are too many AI for X software articles on Wikipedia already, so I'm not sure if there is appetite for more. Software is not well-known and searches bring results about a restaurant . WP:SERIES, WP:ORGTRIV, and WP:SERIESA all leave very little to satisfy WP:NCORP. ~2026-42731-88 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Artificial intelligence, Software, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - seems to have plenty of sources to establish notability, from Indianapolis Business Journal, TechCrunch and Forbes for starters. Timd21 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Paul Zimmer (internet personality)

Paul Zimmer (internet personality) (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)

Tagged for failing WP:GNG, the accusations about financial exploitation are potentially a WP:BLP issue that needs multiple citations from multiple independent reliable sources. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep but remove the sections on financial exploitation - GNG is met through two New Statesman articles and one The Cut article. Exploitation is not well-sourced. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

History of Joy

History of Joy (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:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. Other language article has no usable citations either. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, concurrence in toto, additionally, all the available low quality sources are within two weeks of eachother, which means not only does it lack appropriate coverage, it also lacks non-routine, and any kind of continued coverage. Beyond that it has serious notability issues, and appears to be simply a run of the mill film without any kind of significance. Foxtrot620 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I found this review from Onmanorama. I'm not sure if it's usable, as many of the pages that would allow me to find this come up as "access denied". Still, if it is usable it's a step in the right direction. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I also found these articles from the Deccan Chronicle. I'm kind of getting the impression that there might be more coverage out there (ie, reviews from RS), but it's probably not in English. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep has 2 reviews. Although at first glance, the reviews seem to be two different reviews from the same subsidiary of the same newspaper in two different languages (English, Malayalam) by possibly two authors (one of the reviews isn't bylined), the redirect of english.manoramaonline.com to onmanorama.com, shows that they are from different subsidiaries of the same company. The reviews have different dates as well. Kindly reconsider your vote/nomination @Donaldd23: @Foxtrot620: DareshMohan (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Two reviews, one a functional sock puppet of the other does not WP:Sigcov make. Foxtrot620 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The two reviews are from the same media outlet, and therefore count as one. And neither is much more than a plot summary. Also WP:NEWSORGINDIA concerns apply, potentially diluting notability further. Therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, and as I can't think of a sensible ATD, I land on 'delete'. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I found a music review that has a linked author (see Milliblog). DareshMohan (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Solomon Yi-Kieran

Solomon Yi-Kieran (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 of a pretty standard elected university student leader, who has since decided to run for office (current election candidate). Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, with the majority of advocacy related passing coverage coming from student newspapers. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Education, and Canada. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: If this were to be redirected, the target would likely be 2026 Vancouver municipal election. However, the subject is only afforded one line in a list, and I don't think we're redirecting the dozens of other names there, so I would advise to either keep or delete but not redirect this article. MediaKyle (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

There's more than just student newspaper sources though, including the national CBC, CTV News, and several local newspapers as well. GucciNuzayer (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

.@GucciNuzayer: Would highlight that other than the last CBC Listen reference, the 'mainstream' sources are mostly passing references to Yi-Kieran as part of their AMS responsibilities and not them being a central focus of the article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Did you read my comment above? I really don't think a redirect is helpful here. MediaKyle (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A mere candidate for municipal office isn't entitled to a presumption of notability under NPOL, and the sourcing here is inadequate to independently meet GNG. I agree that a redirect does not make sense and would fully support deletion, with the opportunity to revisit if the subject is ultimately elected. PA Uploader (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The Nightingale casting controversy

The Nightingale casting controversy (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 and WP:NOTNEWS. Lacks WP:DIVERSE and WP:SUSTAINED /WP:PERSISTENCE coverage. Does not demonstrate WP:LASTING or WP:GEOSCOPE impact. A flury of media coverage in local press within a short window is not enough to show this is a notable event. We would need to see wider press coverage outside California which other than the Huffington Post this doesn't have (not surprising since this was a play staged at local theatre; how is this relevant outside of LA?). The play/production itself wouldn't pass GNG because it was staged at a minor theatre. If this were a Broadway show I could maybe see an article but not for a production at a regional theatre. Note that the only source outside of the month of July 2018 is the Huffington Post which is not considered reliable for political topics per WP:HUFFPOST.

At best this could be covered very briefly in the articles on the La Jolla Playhouse and actor Jonathan Pryce; both of which don't even mention the controversy. Although Pryce ended up turning down the part, so I don't think it would be WP:DUE in his article. In fact the controversy is not discussed in any of the relevant related articles; probably because the production itself is not notable which brings as back to the question, is this encyclopedic? I don't think so. 4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, move to The Nightingale (musical). Good catch. I think the play does meet notability guidelines. A few pts: La Jolla is not a minor theater, but a mid-size to large and well-known regional house. Coverage in the article is not local, but at least regional if not national: a workshop in San Diego covered in the LA Times, Backstage, and HuffPo in current sourcing, plus in the International Business Times. Lacking a subject-specific guide for plays, WP:NFF is instructive here, as this wasn't a full production, but a developmental workshop, and the controversey resulted in significant non-routine coverage of the play. There's routine coverage of the play from at-least (I count at least six workshops) 2007, 2011, and 2023. The development process for plays is different than film, but a series of workshops - the path to production and Broadway for many shows - is a strong parallel. The La Jolla workshop meets NFF's requirement for in-depth reporting, such as discussion, critical analysis, set visits, and detailed critiques. There should be multiple sources providing this kind of coverage for a standalone article to be warranted.. Sheik, Sater, Kaufman, and La Jolla Playhouse alongside Powerhouse, The Public/Joe's Pub, Eugene O'Neill Center are all themselves independently notable, and we have SIGCOV from the controversy.—BrechtBro (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Um, I don't think reviews of plays in workshop format are significant enough to count as WP:SIGCOV. These are shows in development, and not reviews of a final product. For Broadway shows, WP:WikiProject Theatre's general policy is to wait until after a show has officially premiered in non-workshop format and is not in preview or tryout stages (which comes after the workshop stage of development). If the show is still in workshop and hasn't even gone into previews it is absolutely too soon for an article on this show.4meter4 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, except we're not looking at reviews - workshops aren't typically open to review and this one wasn't. Because of the controversy, we have a bunch of coverage of the play's development, which is highly unusual and suggests notability. NFF reads, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. (emphasis mine). —BrechtBro (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

NFF is a false analogy. Films play in multiple theaters and can be streamed. The audience for films is often global. A theatre workshop in a minor theatre (and LaJolla is minor. It is not Broadway or the West End or even in a second tier city like Chicago with a major theatre district) has very little audience reach even in the city where it ran. Workshop audiences tend to be small and poorly attended. It is no comparison to a film where the audience is large because it can play in many places simultaneously. A play has no relevant parallel to a film in regards to interpreting NFF. Note that NFF does not cover live theatre for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe any theater professional would describe La Jolla, a LORT B with a Tony award, as "minor."

Having a large audience is not the only path to notability for a creative work, the various subject specific criteria for them such as NBOOK, NFILM, NALBUM all mention independent sigcov as a criteria. WP:UNRELEASED says, of music, Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings, and related items) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Notability here is suggested by sigcov of the the play's development, and in a way that doesn't rely on any CRYSTALBALL speculation about the play's future. If the show was completely unimportant, there would be no coverage of the controversy—BrechtBro (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Regional theatre is regional theatre. You can give a theatre a Regional Theatre Tony Award (not a competitive award; this is actually more like a grant) for doing regional theatre well, and that's a nice feather in its cap but its still doing regional theatre. It's not eligible to compete for major theatre awards for its productions, it doesn't routinely get national and international press (unlike a Broadway or West End theatre) etc. There are lots of theatres all over the country with a regional Tony. It honors a certain aspect of American theatre, but it doesn't elevate that theatre into the major leagues (ie a theatre in a top market with a high profile media presence that extends beyond local news coverage on a routine basis).

As for NALBUM and the other SNGS... Again these are false analogies. Books are sold everywhere. Albums are released everywhere. People can buy them on the internet, on a kindle, at a book store, on a streaming platform etc. These are all mass media products with a potential global market. A local theatre workshop isn't a mass media product. It isn't consumable by the masses and is only viewable to a limited audience. We don't have a relevant SNG to apply here for a reason.

As for SIGCOV... this coverage is not significant. The coverage isn't even reviewing the musical in-depth or talking about it in any significant way. It's mostly focused on a casting controversy without actually talking about the show. There isn't a single solid quality review out of any of the sources presented. It's all press release/promotional adjacent coverage (mostly advertising upcoming workshop performances) without anything particularly meaningful to say. This reflects the fact that this particular show hasn't had a major staging anywhere, and has never been given a full production. Critics aren't going to give their full attention to a workshop because that isn't what is done. All we have here is a rather nominal controversy, and a bunch of fluffy promo press that doesn't actually dig into the show and give it a proper review. That's not GNG level coverage, and certainly isn't showing this show is encyclopedic. To compare look at the plethora of reviews for even short lived Broadway flops where the press actually has something real to say about the show with some quality analysis. That just doesn't exist here.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no reviews because the play didn't open anywhere, critics do not review workshops (or previews, typically) because the gentlemen's agreement between producers and critics is that they are not allowed to, but it's extremely rare that a play's development itself is newsworthy--and we even have a column from the LA Times critic (not local!) discussing it. This is off-topic, but regional premiers routinely win the Pulitzer, fwiw; you seem to be describing a difference between the commercial theater and the not-for-profit theater, many regional theaters are considered to be extremely important in the field, particularly with regards to artistic rather than commercial qualities. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

La Jolla, like other significant regional theaters, is covered with some regularity in the national press, btw. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The LAT article isn’t a review. It’s entirely about the casting controversy. It has nothing of substance to say on the musical itself. LA is also a stone’s throw away from San Diego. People commute between the cities. I wouldn’t consider it national but regional coverage. Regardless, that piece is again not a review and I wouldn’t consider it sig cov of the musical. I just want to point out that the topic here isn't LaJolla as a theatre. The question is about the musical. You really hit the nail on the head here with this: There's no reviews because the play didn't open anywhere, critics do not review workshops (or previews, typically) because the gentlemen's agreement between producers and critics is that they are not allowed to... We both agree on this. Critical reviews are what makes a standalone article on a show possible. That's the type of SIGCOV required. That just doesn't exist which is why deletion is the correct choice in this case. Chalk it up to a case of WP:TOOSOON. Once there is an actual production of the show with critical reviews then we can have an article. 4meter4 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

"Critical reviews are what makes a standalone article on a show possible" I don't believe there's any such guideline that says this, even WP:WikiProject_Theatre/Article_Structure says that critical response is an optional section. There are certain things we can't say about the play since it hasn't opened, but there are other things that we can, much of which is in this article. Articles on unreleased films have details about their production, and they have nothing to say about reception or plot. The production and development history of a play is of no less importance to a play than it is to a film. It's an unusual case, and that's why I'm saying keep. If it's TOOSOON, draftifying should be a reasonable ATD. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: Previous merge discussion at Talk:La Jolla Playhouse#Proposed merge with The Nightingale casting controversy—BrechtBro (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The criticism of a workshop of a musical is not of encyclopedic importance, and the workshop production itself is of even less encyclopedic importance. The musical finally had two concert performances (both on November 12, 2023), at Joe's Pub in NYC, with API-identifying actors. See this. A musical that has played only concert performances at a small venues is not a notable musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete - per nom and Ssilvers (but cover topic briefly in La Jolla Playhouse per nom), and since imo NFF wouldn't apply for a workshop/play :/ - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Dall Island brown bear

Dall Island brown bear (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 Subspecies of brown bear because that was a long-standing redirect. The current version is unsourced. I tried restoring the redirect and was reverted. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Have you discussed this with @Kbbt12fais11, who made the edits in question? These changes occured over a couple of hours. I would also like to see sources. A cursory before search shows they exist. SenshiSun (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect due to lack of sources. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect I was testing, TBH i dont care if this is redirected this is only a test for my editing skills. I dont even think the dall island bear is even a subspecies. Kbbt12fais11 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please do not test in articles. You can either use the general purpose WP:Sandbox, or your own personal one for any editing tests you want to make. I'll add more info on your talk page. In addition, you restored your changes to this article after they were reverted; that was not a test of editing skills. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could redirect already, but because of the bogus "practice" !vote, relisting to be prudent.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

10 Til' Midnight

10 Til' Midnight (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 initially replaced the page with a redirect to Snoop's album discography because the case for it seemed so open-and-shut, but it was quickly reverted for "no consensus". The editor recommended to take this to AFD, so that's what I'm doing. Only sources I was able to find on the current state of the article and Google are PR pieces and news articles, and the few, ahem, reviews I was able to find were one from Revolt that seemed AI-generated, and another from Ratings Game Music, which appears to be a blog where you can submit your own music for review. The one chart position is already mentioned in a note on the discography page, so there is really no purpose for this article being around. User:The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Albert in a Can (Better let the poor guy party like it's 1999) 17:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Draftify - This appears to be a proper album release by an extraordinarily notable artist, nearly all of whose other albums have their own stand-alone pages, suggesting this one likely will warrant one as well. It could use some work before being published, though. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The artist being notable doesn't mean the album is. If there is more actual source coverage to prove this album's notability and make the article long enough, the article can easily be recreated. User:The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Albert in a Can (Better let the poor guy party like it's 1999) 21:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition to inherited notability not being a thing in general (meaning a notable artist's albums are not notable just because they are by a notable artist), the notability of other albums does not establish notability for this album. Albums, like anything else, are deemed notable on their own individual merits only, and nothing else. (No opinion on if this is the case here at all.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, hence the recommendation to return it to draft status. Notability has not yet been established in this current version. But deletion seems pointless given likely notability going forward, and someone has done us the favor of listing out the tracks and providing info and so on. WilsonP NYC (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Matthew Cable

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. There are 2 (or more) equally valid merge targets, so I don't believe that redirecting or merging the character anywhere specific would help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment There seem to be a number of shorter sources, like , , . Daranios (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Don't think that solves the problem with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, still collecting: There's Swamp Thing: EcoGothic Monster or Environmental Champion? as more and Naming Your Little Geek, p. 198-199 as less serious. Myth and Fabulation in the Fantasy Fiction of Neil Gaiman. Ah, here's another one: Neil Gaiman's The Sandman and Joseph Campbell: In Search of the Modern Myth has a full page analysing the role of Matthew in "The Wake" as a reader stand-in, the most extended source so far. @Zxcvbnm: Could you please check out the further hits of this Google Books search, as it looks quite promising? Daranios (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  , , all have bits of commentary on the presentation of Matthews speech in the graphic novels. This has comment on the mythological inspirations of Matthew the raven, and this draws parallels to Shakespeare, but I cannot see the extent of either. Daranios (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: C in the spirit of WP:ATD. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I believe taking all sources together there is enough for a full article, thus establishing notability. If there should be no consensus for keep, the fact that there are two different merge targets for the two phases in the character's fictional biography should not be grounds for deletion. Rather, there would be a perfectly fine merge target just for such cases in the List of DC Comics characters: M. Daranios (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – I disagree that it does not meet notability: the sources above show it meets GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge: The "sources" don't actually seem to establish anything for Matthew Cable in particular if you read whichever could be read; the Myth and Fabulation in the Fantasy Fiction of Neil Gaiman mentions Matthew the Raven but the overall point is talking about how heroric characters in the Sandman are. It's more building up to a conclusion and it doesn't apply in establishing WP:GNG. Name Your Little Geek just briefly mentions the character and isn't indiactive to being noteworthy (the same page, for example, mentioned the third Hourman "Matthew Tyler" but Hourman was found to not pass WP:GNG). In other words, arugment for the source proving notability appears like WP:NEXIST to me. I'm open to being proven wrong though If im missing something that's being said in the sources I cannot read or see. CosmicMordecai (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered Neil Gaiman's The Sandman and Joseph Campbell: In Search of the Modern Myth? I've also seen that "“The Sandman”: Transmedia narratives as a therapy against fear" has a good paragraph. Daranios (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd also love to see the content of "Books—Dream—Stories: Neil Gaiman's The Sandman and Ovid's Metamorphoses", but unfortunately cannot access it. The preview "... The inclusion of Matthew-as-raven alongside previous ravens from myth shows one way that Gaiman blurs myth with comics history as part of his programmatic theme of changing forms..." sounds promising with regard to providing analysis. Daranios (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge to List of DC Comics characters: C. There are sources but not enough for a standalone article. Khalitate (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to List of DC Comics characters: C per Khalitate I did some searches and couldn't find a ton that would meet secondary source standards. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 London antisemitic attacks

2026 London antisemitic attacks (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 is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and there is no evidence of coordination of the attacks. tarhataz (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, Judaism, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Either delete or needs major work with deletion of what appears to be large amounts of conjecture and original research not supported by the sources cited. I'll make a start on trying to improve the article, but the concept itself of a wave of coordinated attacks is dubious and unsupported by verified sources. Little Professor (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete This article groups various attacks together by nothing more than general location and general time and claims a shared motive, while no motive has been confirmed by law. The Metropolitan Police was criticsed for labelling the Golders Green attack as antisemetic when the first victim was not Jewish, so I think there is cause to be very hesitant in apportioning motives in this sensitive climate. Until motive is recognised beyond doubt, there is no place for a speculating article.User:Framax97 16:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment At the very least, I think it needs to be renamed. The header includes both the unsourced claim: "allegedly targeted the Jewish community" and a reference to news article titled "Fury as media, police and government accused of ‘erasing’ Muslim victim in London stabbings to target pro-Palestinian protests" Sesamehoneytart 02:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This article is reflective of its many reliable sources that are consistent in their reporting on this topic. Saying "there is no evidence of coordination of the attacks" is NPOV and OR, not the article. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The article meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT with substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources that relate to these events as a set of connected events, not as detached singular events. If the article contains NPOV issues, the wiki thing to do is to edit the article and clean it up rather than deleting it. Also keep the title as it is, it gives a good explanation on the content inside the article. Happypenguins82 (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or at least rename and heavily edit. The biggest issue here is the sentence "Responsibility for most of the attacks was claimed online by HAYI" which if true and sourced would absolutely link the events together; however, in the list of attacks only one is specifically sourced as being claimed by HAYI, whilst another two might be linked to them. That's not "most of the attacks" and so the article is misleading. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment - I've added another reference from CNN for this statement in the article, which explicitly says that HAYI "has claimed responsibility for most of these incidents". Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - very spurious link to each other with a lot of original research and no evidence that it was co-ordinated AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Thank you for the notification. It's not Wikipedians that grouped these attacks, and they're definitely collectively notable. The Met police chief quoted in The Guardian, Le Monde, BBC, Evening Standard (timeline), NBC News, France 24, CNN, ITV News (timeline), The Independent (timeline), Searchlight, Jerusalem Post: all report these attacks on London's Jewish sites and people as a series, sometimes adding commentary that they were triggered by the US/Israeli war on Iran. The attacks have had consequences satisfying the expectations of WP:EVENT, such as the Met deploying 100 more officers to protect Jewish communities, the national threat level increasing to "severe", and the UK govt banning the Iranian IMCR (aka HAYI) and IRGC. The suspected ring-leader is Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood al-Saadi . Those arguing for deletion simply haven't looked at the level of reporting and how it explicitly groups these attacks. Fences&Windows 12:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for providing links to refs so I don't have to keep 100 tabs open. I selected a couple based on whether or not I could get past the paywall... France24 new article says there's "a proactive investigation into alleged conspiracy to commit arson" which seems inconclusive. The BBC link puts the number into context: "latest figures show that Muslims were the most targeted religious group in England and Wales, with 4,478 cases in the year to March 2025". Makes me wonder if news articles are being selectively picked to support the Jewish community and if this article should also include muslim attacks to provide equal coverage/neutrality. I'm not claiming to understand London's situation at all- that bus station stabbing video is terrifying- I'm just trying to keep WP neutral. Sesamehoneytart 18:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Your personal speculation about why sources are covering these attacks versus covering attacks on Muslims is entirely irrelevant to AfD. Sources are allowed to be biased in what they cover and how they cover it. Fences&Windows 17:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. There are certainly cases where things can seem like WP:OR when they aren't really. Per WP:V/WP:SIGCOV and similar policies, our job is to reflect what is covered in reliable secondary sources, and it is a fact that multiple news outlets (such as the ones cited by Fences&Windows) have grouped them together as attacks against the Jewish community. If my fellow editors take issue with these source's claims, then it would be worthwhile to bring them up for discussion at WP:RSN. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the WP:OR is referring to the news sources establishing a link where the investigators did not. Every source I've read so far says something along the lines of "the investigation is ongoing". Sesamehoneytart 18:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  We go by reliable sources. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:GNG and is being reported by the news as correlated events (as seen in sources provided by Fences and windows). jolielover♥talk 15:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify or Delete. This is an ongoing event. What is the rush to push it to mainspace? Shouldn't we wait until the event resolves and we have all the information? (WP:NOTNEWS) There is a wide variation of descriptions depending on which source you read. I have no doubt these events occurred, but whether or not they're part of some secret organization's secret plan or if it's just a bunch of separate, equally angry people is yet unconfirmed. Sources that call these events "antisemitic" also use words like "horrific", questioning neutrality and original research (are the events connected or does the author *want* them to be?). The BBC in particular is careful to distinguish that arson is the only known connection. Some of the events included in the wp article are already known to be people acting independently and I think there's a good bit of confirmation bias taking place. Sesamehoneytart 18:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether there is a single underlying plot or not. The reliable sources cover them as a series/spate of attacks. Editors seem to be letting their own personal views get in the way here. Fences&Windows 17:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I support deletion. This seems to be an unnecessary content fork that mostly repeats material already covered in the individual incident articles. The selection of incidents also feels somewhat arbitrary, so the content would be better merged into existing articles rather than kept as a standalone page. At the very least it would need some heavy editing. Yubudirsi (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per @Fences and windows. The article may need improvement, but it is not inherently OR . Khalitate (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Draftify or Weak Keep I can see an article talking about the attacks on synagogues, other institutions, people and the conspiracy behind those attacks, even if only alleged. However, I don't see the relevance of the verbal abuse on tik tok fitting in here as an example. There are thousands of antisemitic incidents in the UK a year this hardly stands out. There should be consideration to renaming the article and adjusting the list of events discussed. As mentioned above, it's still 2026 and Wikipedia is not a news organization, this may be better introduced at a later date. There may be more credence introduced to the idea of a conspiracy but the current pushback to that framing is reasonable to an extent. I have no problem with the article existing but it does need work. AadamentAardvark (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The inclusion of TikTok or not in not something for AfD to decide. The NOTNEWS argument is addressed by its passing WP:EVENT, with persistent coverage, real-world impacts (noted in my earlier comment), diverse coverage, geographically wide coverage, and indepth coverage. Fences&Windows 17:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not a renaming discussion, nor is it a content discussion. This is a discussion around notability. We go by what RS say. And that is that the series of antisemitic attacks around London have received secondary analysis as a group over a period of time, easily meeting WP:NEVENT. WP:OR or WPNOV are not policy-based grounds for deletion. Here's CBS in March, CNN and LeMonde in April, Reuters in May, news agencies in July. This one isn't even close. Longhornsg (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The argument that this is OR made by nom and several delete comments are simply wrong. RS aggregate the specific attacks discussed here into a group and comment on them. That is different to a claim of coordination which would require specific evidence. Examples of RS that treat the attacks as a subject:
  • Politico: The spate of attacks targeting Jewish communities started... followed by several paragraphs about them as a group.
  • BBC: Police investigating attacks on the Jewish community ... an ongoing counter-terrorism investigation into a series of attacks on the Jewish community in London, with targets including synagogues and ambulances. The Metropolitan Police said, since an attack on Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March, officers had arrested a total of 26 people. I.e. the arrests are not in relation to the Hatzola arson alone, but the whole series of attacks.
  • NPR: a string of arson attacks and a double stabbing that have sparked fear and anger among Jews.

There are loads more examples. Nomination also referenced NPOV, though I have no idea why. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep having edited the article for the 2026 Hatzola arson attack and seeing the scope and breadth of the sourcing about the incidents included here, there is a clear common thread that demonstrates that the notability standard is met based on the reliable and verifiable sources provided for the individual incidents and for their being perceived as a well-defined grouping. In addition to the extensive sourcing already in the article and the additional sources cited above, the recent coverage in "UK says Iran-backed group behind arson and vandalism attacks on Jewish community" from PBS demonstrates that these attacks are viewed as sharing a common and uniting character. The arguments being made that there is "no evidence of coordination of the attacks" or "no motive has been confirmed by law" or "the concept itself of a wave of coordinated attacks is dubious and unsupported by verified sources" or "no evidence that it was co-ordinated" turns Wikipedia policy on its head, baselessly demanding definitive proof rather than relying on WP:GNG's guidance that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The standard set by WP:Notability is met here. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

SRH Hochschule Berlin

SRH Hochschule Berlin (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:NORG. Not a single independent source is cited in the article, and no sufficient ones could be located. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I am also nominating:

SRH University Heidelberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The second article does technically have a few independent sources but none that are otherwise useful for notability. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to SRH University Heidelberg. The German Berlin school article says the school has been merged along with several other SRH schools into the Heidelberg school. The Berlin school is no more, and a merge and redirect makes sense. The German Wikipedia has an SRH holding article about the parent of the schools, described as follows:
  The SRH includes private universities, general and vocational schools, technical schools, educational centres for further education and vocational rehabilitation, as well as hospitals and rehabilitation clinics.
  If you Google SRH Holding German, the AI tells you:
  SRH Holding is a major non-profit foundation in Germany providing education and healthcare services, operating private universities across multiple campuses. Founded in 1966 and headquartered in Heidelberg, the group employs over 17,000 people and manages 18 university campuses serving more than 16,000 students.
  Since there's no SRH Holding article yet on the English Wikipedia, we can't merge and redirect both, but to make it simple, why don't we do one redirect, and then work on expanding the Heidelberg article to try to match the SRH holding German article? I haven't tried to look for some sources for the parent, in case anyone speaks German and wants to try. Maybe post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Gauya (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't disagree that SRH Holding might conceivably be notable, but right now I don't see any actual evidence for WP:NORG. The German Wikipedia article is longer but just as useless in terms of sources – I can't see a single source usable for NORG in its references. If it was on English Wikipedia I would have nominated it too. The long and short of it is that across all the existing articles and my WP:BEFORE search, I am not aware of a single source that would meet the criteria of NORG, let alone a sufficient number of them. Of course, if someone can find them, great!, but right now we just don't have them. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: There are sources in the German Wikipedia versions that are yet to be included here. I added one--now source no. 3, which is significant coverage in a newspaper. Per deletion guidelines, we do not delete articles if they can be improved.

Rublamb (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm in Pittsburgh and It's Raining

I'm in Pittsburgh and It's Raining (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 sure whether to delete outright or merge to The Outcasts (Texas band). The article for the band itself has more info on this album than its own article, with sources to boot, albeit shaky ones. This album lacks any significant coverage, no reliable sources have covered it on its own. 21stcenturycoelacanth (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge To the The Outcasts (Texas band). Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Kadri Tuisk

Kadri Tuisk (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)

Highly promotional entrepreneurcruft. The sources are either interviews, or about her non-notable award win (or both) or about her companies. Athanelar (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Technology, and Estonia. Athanelar (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Najand Institute of Higher Education

Najand Institute of Higher Education (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 listed sources are WP:SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing and the university also appears to be permanently closed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Bungle491 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related AfD discussions. Bungle491 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Amenti (video game)

Amenti (video game) (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 seem to be notable (WP:GNG), mostly self-promo (WP:PROMO), article is entirely AI-generated (WP:NEWLLM) TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Neutral since I don't really edit video games, but PC Gamer is a strong source. Geschichte (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Astrateias graphe

Astrateias graphe (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)

Wholly AI generated, potentially lacks notability TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Military, and Greece. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Liberation philosophy

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Liberation philosophy
• Articles for deletion/Liberation philosophy (2nd nomination)

Liberation philosophy (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)

Entire article is AI generated, WP:TNT TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Social science. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Patulia High School

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

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patulia#Education, where it's mentioned, as an ATD-R. Additional searches didn't yield anything with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete no WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Jim Stauffer

Jim Stauffer (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 content in this article is virtually identical to the content in Pacific Marine Mammal Center. Furthermore, the subject of this article is not notable outside of his work with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center. Gb321 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and California. Gb321 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Vozgian

Vozgian (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 evidence for significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Kisseran (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Language-related AfD discussions. Kisseran (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Support I agree with @Kisseran on this matter; upon cursory inspection Vozgian has little secondary sources. SavageSquad67 (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Trygve Ugland

Trygve Ugland (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:NPROF nor WP:NAUTHOR google search shows he exists but not to our notability standard Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Norway. Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Please do a source analysis of the extant sources Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Hagoogane (1920)

Battle of Hagoogane (1920) (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 nominating this article for deletion because I do not think the sources currently cited provide enough coverage to justify a standalone article. Of the eleven references listed, only two appear to discuss Hagoogane directly, and both do so briefly. One refers to the event as the "Hagoogane raid", while another describes it as a "looting raid".

There are also several detailed claims in the article, including casualty figures, force strengths and parts of the narrative, which I have been unable to verify in the sources cited for them. Some additional works have been mentioned on the talk page as possible support, but several of these are not actually cited in the article, and relevant page numbers have not been provided.

I raised these concerns on the talk page before bringing the article to AfD, but the underlying sourcing issue remains. Based on the sources currently provided, I do not think there is enough substantial coverage of Hagoogane as a distinct event to satisfy WP:GNG, while a considerable amount of the article remains difficult to verify under WP:V and may involve synthesis or WP:OR. For these reasons, I believe deletion is appropriate unless sufficient reliable sourcing can be demonstrated during this discussion. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Somalia. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Tom Smith (Michigan politician)

Tom Smith (Michigan politician) (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 on a non-notable politician (fails WP:NPOL as merely a candidate for office). All coverage is in the context of his surprise primary election victory, with no evidence of any sustained notability. Should be redirected to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan#District 8 (with relevant coverage of his primary victory added there). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Michigan. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(EC):The question is not whether he's had a remarkable life before his surprise win in the primary. The question is whether he is notable now by WP:GNG. The case for GNG is that there have been many articles in very reliable sources about him and his surprise victory. I've only put 4 RS's in the references (why try to bludgeon the process?). And he is the official Republican nominee for a US congressional seat - both he and the party agree on that). Here are the RS refs in the article now:

• MIRS News (5 August 2026). "Did Trump-Backed Candidate's Islamic Name Led To Surprise Loss?". Michigan Information and Research Service. Retrieved 8 August 2026. ( state-wide source for politics)
• Wagner, Bayliss (5 August 2026). "Trump-Backed Republican Loses to Little-Known Rival Who Had Suspended His Bid". New York Times.
• Piper, Jessica; Howard, Andrew (5 August 2026). "Trump-backed candidate in battleground Michigan district loses to opponent who dropped out". Politico.
• Swai, Finya (4 August 2026). "Trump-backed Hassan falls short in Michigan House primary to take on McDonald Rivet". The Hill (newspaper).

To add a few more (since AfD is a different process)

• Washington Post
• Detroit Free Press long time local Detroit RS newspaper
• Associated Press
• The Guardian UK
• US ABC News
• People Magazine
• At least 2 in the Detroit News
• Michigan NPR
• Midland, Michigan local paper
• BBC (in passing)
• The Independent (UK) via Yahoo!

So that 14 reliables sources (leaving out the BBC) just around the primary election day. There will be more with the general election. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Draftify - current active political candidate who has already garnered some unusual coverage - I don't feel like we should delete or redirect away this work considering he's a current candidate with a reasonable chance of becoming notable, and merging would make little sense considering the format of elections pages - At the same time, he definitely also doesn't meet notability. so Draftify. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

A City Surrounded by Mountains

A City Surrounded by Mountains (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:NFILM. I cannot find any English-language coverage outside of references on Shoolizadeh's own website. It's possible Farsi sources exist but I cannot find/access those. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Ishaan Music College

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NSCHOOL. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Schools, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sahibganj

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sahibganj (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) 02:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government Medical College, Faridabad

Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government Medical College, 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 Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

St. Mary's English High School, Jamshedpur

St. Mary's English High School, Jamshedpur (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) 02:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Bokaro Ispat Vidyalayas

Bokaro Ispat Vidyalayas (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) 02:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education

National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education (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)

Lack of WP:SIGCOV from WP:SIRS to meet WP:NORG. Redirect to parent org Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch. Longhornsg (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Religion, Judaism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Mashpia

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

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

WP:DICT. Non-notable phrase. Redirect to rabbi. Longhornsg (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism. Longhornsg (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Da Mao

Da Mao (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 Da Mao and Er Shun (a new page) because this panda's life closely intertwines with Er Shun's life, as they were a duo, similar to Chuang Chuang and Lin Hui or Jia Yueyue and Jia Panpan - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and China. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's important that you also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Er Shun - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Er Shun

Er Shun (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 Da Mao and Er Shun (a new page) because this panda's life closely intertwines with Da Mao's life, as they were a duo, similar to Chuang Chuang and Lin Hui or Jia Yueyue and Jia Panpan - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and China. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's important that you also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Mao - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge Generally I am in favour of reducing article glut on "individually named animals". In this case lumping them would seem slightly less organic than with the existing double-dip pandas, but they are a couple and could well be covered in one article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Jim Meffert

AfDs for this article:

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

Jim Meffert (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-time candidate for Congress who did not receive significant coverage. A 2010 AFD produced "keep" under looser standards, and a 2012 AFD produced "no consensus," so it seems worth revisiting given the self-promotional aspect of the page and the lack of notability. As an alternative, the page could be redirected to 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota#District 3. PA Uploader (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Medicine, and Minnesota. PA Uploader (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

John Zillmer

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

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. I am unable to find any coverage other than his appointment as CEO for Aramark and a few passing mentions in others. Being a CEO does not equal notability and because of the lack of WP:SIGCOV I am not seeing a need for an individual page at this time. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Carol Porter

Carol Porter (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-time nominee for statewide office (Lieutenant Governor of Georgia in 2010) who did not receive significant coverage in that race. Fails NPOL and does not otherwise pass GNG. PA Uploader (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Georgia (U.S. state). PA Uploader (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete - seems to be non-notable, low-profile individual who only made headlines for routine political activity as an unelected candidate. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Primordial Radio

Primordial Radio (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 convinced this online radio station is significant. Probable COI creation although username doesn't identify a specific individual. Sourcing is predominantly their own website, seems like it's been padded with lots of these references and insignificant events to try to create an allusion of relevance. Any coverage I can find isn't sigcov and I feel the purpose of the article is vanity. KaisaL (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related AfD discussions. KaisaL (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Moose and JRock

Moose and JRock (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)

Vanity COI article on a non-notable radio show on an online radio station that itself appears to be of dubious notability. Created by User:Jimboespley who clearly corresponds to James Espley in the article. Sources don't establish notability at all, lacks any form of sigcov. KaisaL (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related AfD discussions. KaisaL (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete given the Espley connection, this is advertorial. Haz215 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Pierre Venter

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

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

Most likely AI-generated (see reasons in tag added in Special:Diff/1359903761). Original article has been replaced with a second version in Special:Diff/1368762949, that has utm params showing ChatGPT use and is also almost AI-generated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Suspected AI-generated articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Food and drink, South Africa, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete - we should honestly make these ChatGPT copy-pastes eligible for speedy deletion. There wasnt even an attempt to change what ChatGPT created. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

They are eligible for G15 speedy deletion if the evidence that it lacks human cleanup is clear enough, as it may be in this case. We also have the WP:LLMPROD process for LLM-created material. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. LLM text is not worth the effort to fix. M kuhner (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TNT and the clear LLM origin of this text (which still contains WP:LLMSIGNS), despite the pass of WP:PROF#C6. Could possibly be G15 speedy as above. I would be open to changing my mind if some non-LLM-user wants to undertake a ground-up rewrite. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

List of compositions by Eric Ewazen

List of compositions by Eric Ewazen (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)

Strictly promotional with a possible COI. BLP article page is questionable for basic GNG notability. No references to warrant separate article listing composition for this BLP. No SIGCOV for any listing. Partial List on BLP page Eric Ewazen is sufficient. Maineartists (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and United States of America. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 01:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced directory-like material, more fit for a personal homepage. Geschichte (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Zabir Saeed

Zabir Saeed (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)

Sources listed in the article are self-authored or about award like "Lifetime Achievement Award" , which are usually paid. I think sole purpose of this biography is self-promotion. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Pakistan. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 01:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hypotaxis

Hypotaxis (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, as a major editor of the hypotaxis article, propose merging to Parataxis argue for the following reasons: (1) both are similar rhetoric devices that are (in English, at least) exclusive— as in every non-paratactical sentence is hypotactical, so there is no weird overlap; (2) both pages contain many of the same headers— history, use, examples (and etymology could be added with hypotaxis)— so the structure would work pleasantly; (3) both articles, especially hypotaxis, often compares parataxis in its explanations, so it would be easier to do that contrasting and explanation in one location; (4) not many articles (currently about 20) link to hypotaxis, giving it less relevancy and more incentive to merge.

For basis, the rhetoric book The Elements of Eloquence combined hypotaxis and parataxis in one chapter, where usually chapters are reserved for only one device; there are rhetorical articles that merge similarly (take Zeugma and syllepsis); and WP:OVERLAP provides a valid basis for a merging (take the example flammable and non-flammable becoming flammability).

I would be willing to do much of the work involving the merging process.

TLDR: I propose merging to Parataxis because of the articles' (1) similar topics, (2) similar headers and content, (3) existing comparisons in both articles, (4) hypotaxis' lack of prominence, (5) pre-existing basis for merging

SavageSquad67 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Language-related AfD discussions. SavageSquad67 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. None of WP:MERGEREASON applies. The closest is "4. Context" ("in order to better serve reader understanding.") But the articles are perfectly understandable independently. --Altenmann >talk 14:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  second ~2026-43471-57 (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, there seems to be no good reason for the merge, as the concepts are clearly distinct, separately notable, and long enough to justify separate articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

4 Elements (album)

4 Elements (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 Chronic Future because article does not meet full notability for WP:NALBUM. Only has 1 source to AllMusic, no chart peaks or any other information Majash2020 (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Majash2020 (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect. Agree that article doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. SupermarketCake (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and keep improving per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. There are a few more reviews to the article still. Will return later with analysis but sources added to the article now are enough to keep. No mention of any WP:BEFORE search above. Remember The Wikipedia Library is your friend, particularly when it comes to easily finding coverage about music albums. For albums like this, would particularly recommend using ProQuest (which you can access once you log in to the Wikipedia Library). Cielquiparle (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Chronic Future (album)

Chronic Future (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 Chronic Future because article does not meet full notability for WP:NALBUM. Only one reference to AllMusic, no chart peaks or any other information Majash2020 (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Majash2020 (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect. Agree that article doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. SupermarketCake (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and keep improving per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Chronic Future's debut album was notable because of the young age of its band members – they were in the early teens at the time. This is explained in articles such as "Straight outta Scottsdale" in Phoenix New Times which also discusses the commercial success of the original album in the Southwestern regional market and its extensive airplay on college radio stations, after it was released on a local indie label. The 2004 article "Chronic Future looks for a deeper meaning" in the Arizona Republic then explains the success of the album upon its re-release by Tommy Boy Records, particularly with the tracks "Scottsdale" and "Insomniac". "Band with a Future" (1997 article in Arizona Republic) follows the band as it records its first video for "Scottsdale". Both versions of the album are mentioned in this 2001 Billboard magazine article, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest. Could go on but in any case there is no mention of any WP:BEFORE search. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Nizamabad Airport

Nizamabad Airport (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)

Merely a proposed airport with no actual ground or paper works in progress since many years. Qualifies for WP:TOOSOON. Lack of relaible and independent sources. Article heavily mentions proposed/expected cost and other vital details with no independent relaible sources. 456legendtalk 15:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related AfD discussions. 456legendtalk 15:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Why is India building more airports? Bearian (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  How is that question related to the AfD? FaviFake (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as it fails WP:TOOSOON. However my question remains if its worthy to draftify these articles because they do have decent SIGCOV. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:45, 11 August 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 Procedural close. This is a WP:RFD discussion as it's a redirect, but I'll also warn the nominator to please not use an LLM further in any deletion discussion. In the meantime I've re-targeted the redirect to China–European Union relations as a much more comprehensive article and target, which does not require an RFD. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 01:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Europeans in China

Europeans in China (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)

Call to Delete:
Article Europeans in China currently exists simply as a redirect to Europe Street. However, article title directly relates to European people (Europeans), whereas Europe Street namespace relates to cultural areas in China referencing or designed with inspirations taken from European cultures; these are naturally two different topics.

Article page has no history beyond being created as a redirect, and so did not contain other material which would be lost through deletion.. Article does not seem to justify itself.

Summary:
Deletion Request: Europeans in China. Summary: Article currently takes Europeans in China namespace, yet only exists as a redirect to an article which is not actually about Europeans in China, but Chinese references to / imitations of European cultures in tourist-oriented cultural areas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenHistoryPedia (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 August 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 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:17, 11 August 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.