Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Purge

7 October 2026

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

< October 06 October 08 >

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonatan Sompolinsky

Education in Amaravati

[edit]


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

Merge to Education in Andhra Pradesh

I propose merging the article to Education in Andhra Pradesh because it lacks standalone notability. As Amaravati is a part of Andhra Pradesh, I believe that the article should be merged to the Andhra Pradesh article.TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2463, Smithsonian Institution

[edit]
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2463, Smithsonian Institution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose merging American Federation of Government Employees. No indication that this one local is particularly notable. Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

National Border Patrol Council

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

Propose merging to American Federation of Government Employees. No indication that this one local is particularly notable. Guy Macon (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Peter Kuplowsky

[edit]


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

Refs seems to be passing mentions and profiles. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 07:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Ref 1 This is non-bylined profile. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 2 A "meet" article, reads like an interview with routine change of position reporting. I don't think its indpendent.
  • Ref 3 Own profile web page. Its not independent. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 4 "Kuplowsky told The Hollywood Reporter" Another interview style article.
  • Ref 5 "He told the Star this year’s edition seeks to honour Lopez". Another interview style article.
  • Ref 6 Staff listing. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 7 University profile. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 8 Another "Meet" article. Very short.
  • Ref 9 Passing mention.
  • Ref 10 "“In a Violent Nature is the culmination of a creative partnership between myself, Chris Nash and fellow producer Shannon Hanmer,” said producer Peter Kuplowsky". Another short interview.

This is a WP:BLP which needs in-depth, independent, reliable WP:SECONDARY to prove notability. What we have here is a mix of 2-3 interviews, profiles, event listings and passing mentions. There isn't a single reference that proves the subject is notable per a traditional interpretation of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

* Comment - Expanded and more references added. Alaney2k (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep. Article's referencing problems have been addressed by Alaney2k (barnstar for that). I would note, however, that just because an article appears poorly referenced on the surface very obviously does not mean it's automatically unrepairable deletion bait — lots of articles that happen to be in a poor current state are repairable with a bit of effort, which is precisely why we have a rule about the steps you have to take WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion, namely checking various resources to see if better sources are available. Kuplowsky is a perfect example of a person who's so obviously notable that those preliminary steps clearly weren't taken, because there's no way anybody could possibly fail to find the better sources he very obviously has if they had actually tried at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment Its been well updated. I'll do a source analysis table in the morning. scope_creepTalk
  • Comment Here is a source analysis table:
  • Ref 1 This is non-bylined profile. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 2 Interview with TIFF Programmer Peter Kuplowsky
  • Ref 3 A "meet" article, reads like an interview with routine change of position reporting. I don't think its indpendent.
  • Ref 4 This is an non-bylines profile. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 5 "Kuplowsky told The Hollywood Reporter ahead of unveiling his 2026 Midnight Madness sidebar lineup on Thursday" Another interview style article. Its not independent.
  • Ref 6 "He told the Star this year’s edition seeks to honour Lopez “by doing what Adam would have done to the best of our ability.” Not independent. Another interview.
  • Ref 7 Staff listing. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 8 Profile page at his uni. Directory listing. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 9 Another "meet" interview style article. Its not independent.
  • Ref 10 Another "meet" article. Not independent.
  • Ref 11
  • Ref 12
  • Ref 13 Interview
  • Ref 14 Its a passing mention.
  • Ref 15 A talk with Peter. Not independent.
  • Ref 16
  • Ref 17 Event listing
  • Ref 18 Interview with Peter. Not independent.

I'm not going to do any more. WP:BLP states exactly "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources". These are not highly quality sources. What we have instead is a series of interviews given by a public facing individual who is active by being paid to promote the TIFF organisation across a series of venues both in local and some regional newspapers. There is NO WP:SECONDARY sources in this whole article. I resent the comment by Bearcat that somehow a WP:BEFORE hasn't been done as though a individual who has been paid a promote a festival screening is somehow notable because they have seen them. He is conflating the popularity of the TIFF festival itself with the subject, who has no in-depth, reliable, indpendent secondary coverage and can't prove it here after 24 references. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment Surprised you consider TIFF's own website to not be RS. Anyway, I think I've brought the article to pass GNG. I've not finished. I've still to view the ELs I have stored in the Talk page. BTW. Each of the non-web newspaper articles have by lines and are from RS newspapers. The interviews are independent. Alaney2k (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
To be fair, a reliable source has to be fully independent of the subject. That is, a person's staff profile on the self-published website of his employer wouldn't count as a reliable or notability-assisting source, precisely because it doesn't represent independent attention being bestowed onto him by a third party without a vested interest. The definition of a reliable source doesn't hinge on the information coming "straight from the horse's mouth", as it were — it hinges on the information coming from a media outlet that has independently decided that the things the talking horse said were newsworthy enough to do third-party journalism about. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok. Is it still an OK source? I mean I don't know if I can explain this to a non-wikipedian. Alaney2k (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
There needs to valid secondary coverage to prove WP:V. It is still a WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 17:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:47, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree that these are largely (but not necessarily exclusively) potentially unreliable and non-independent sources, but remember WP:ARTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the topic has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the topic notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the topic's notability.
Bruhpedia (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Paul Sloane (speaker)

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

Created by an editor blocked for UPE, none of the sourcing passes WP:GNG. Can't find any evidence they pass WP:NAUTHOR or equivalent. EDIT: I somehow overlooked the previous AfD only a month ago, whoops! As noted in the previous AfD, the only review of his work (that was definitvely by him) anyone could find was , which definitely isn't enough for NAUTHOR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - one source isn't enough, so can't scrape past WP:NAUTHOR. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 12:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: I was able to find a couple of reviews: this one from The Mathematical Gazette about Mathematical Lateral Thinking Puzzles, and this one from the Journal of Product Innovation Management about The Leader's Guide to Lateral Thinking Skills. I'm not very knowledgeable on the article's subject or with the relevant notability guidelines, so I won't comment on if it should be deleted. I also don't know if these reviews are independent, reliable sources, but seeing that they both come from peer-reviewed journals I'm inclined to think so. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Senior Lifestyle Corporation

[edit]


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

don't see any sources that pass WP:NORG. none of the article content is supported by the NYT, Tribune, Monitor, etc. sources, they were all added a week after creation by TAs, and mostly just name drop the company by saying it is developing one community or another. Search online only uncovered sources from the trade Senior Housing News, and those sources are of uncertain independence, and besides, lacking the required multiple sources for an article. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I won't make any remarks on the notability of the subject since I didn't go through any of the sources in the article. While I did find some coverage on communities that are under Senior Lifestyle Corporation, there wasn't much on the company itself. All I could find was this article which might not be independent because most of it is an interview and this one which might be too short to be considered significant. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep the 2000 Evanston New York Times article is brief mention, but this one in New York Times "The Gray Middle Market" from 2005 is mostly about the company: its three housing projects, Autumn Green, and its role as "the leading developer here of a type of housing for low-income elderly people." That is SIGCOV. And Crain's has covered it for many years (2008, 2012), and the industry media Senior Housing News. The current article should be expanded with new sources and cut where trivial coverage is presented. So it's more a cleanup. Qihonis grigotch (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

@Qihonis grigotch That NYT source is a good find, I think that could fairly be considered sigcov. Could you mind quoting from the Crain's sources, the second is a paywall after the first sentence (at which point it feels a bit press-release-y, but what wouldn't before sentence two) and the second is a dead link for me. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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) 08:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Fly Gibraltar

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

Non-notable company - tagged as such since 2013. Never actually operated any flights. Even if it were better sourced, it clearly fails WP:NCORP 10mmsocket (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Merge/redirect to OEM International. The article on the operating/parent company. The subject of the Fly Gibraltar article is, effectively, a "product" of OEM International. That was never released. And to which WP:NPRODUCT applies. As noted in previous AfD discussions, the subject was effectively a proposed project (floated by the construction company which wanted to get work developing the airport terminal) that never got off the ground (multiple puns intended). While, as noted in previous AfD discussions, the proposing company's press releases and related efforts received some coverage in mostly regional and industry outlets, that coverage wouldn't appear to justify a standalone title. Any cited content could easily be merged to the company article (which isn't already WP:TOOLARGE and could easily sustain it) and their proposed project readily covered WP:WITHIN the article on the parent org. Pretty much every WP:MERGEREASON applies. (In all honesty, given the "no consensus" and close-run nature of the previous AfD discussions, I'm kind of surprised that compromise alternatives [like merge] don't appear to have been considered....) Guliolopez (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I would be very happy to support that outcome. Thanks for suggesting it. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kelvyn Hallifax

[edit]
Kelvyn Hallifax (edit | talk | history | 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 BLP fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC: the cited sources are a passing mention in a textbook, a blog, a regional article mentioning him only incidentally and a non-independent profile, and a WP:BEFORE search found only database entries. Moarnighar (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Ronnie L. Terry

[edit]
Ronnie L. Terry (edit | talk | history | 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 have any significant secondary coverage about the individual (rather than the companies) to fulfill notability for NMUSIC or NBIO. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 07:59, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

I do not agree that this article should be nominated for deletion. This Wikipedia platform is already a failing platform. Easily being replaced by Google Knowledge Panels. Although two different technologies, you are limiting new and emerging creatives and living people from having contribution to this very well known and almost historical platform. Instead of deleting or nominating for deletion, you should work with editors and contributors in this community to fix these pages. Do not destroy the hard work individuals are putting into this project. The same indivuduals who are donating to keep Wikipedia alive. Work to keep this going don't tear it down. Jjbinks85 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Please read Wikipedia:Notability:
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the topic has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the topic notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the topic's notability.
- TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 08:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Citation Group

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

Doesn't seen to pass WP:Notability, and the more I look at the author's history the more it looks like paid editing, right down to 500 of the same low-value edit to different pages once per minute to get extended-confirmed and then immediately creating a promotional page. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

AIB Group (UK)

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

Not notable independently of its parent. Further, there's no real content that could apply to this page and not its parent's, so I don't think it's salvageable. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Allied Irish Bank (GB)

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

It's a stub with some moderately promotional content and nothing else. Not really WP:Purpose. It's a regional subsidiary that doesn't seem notable independent of its parent company. Seems like it would be preferable to merge it into the parent. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Yossi Bitton

[edit]
Yossi Bitton (edit | talk | history | 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:NOTE outright. The sources used are largely promotional in nature and a search for his name, in both English and Hebrew, failed to turn up independent or reliable sources. I am concerned, based on editing history, that there may be WP:UPE issues as well. Bruhpedia (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Diego Granese

[edit]
Diego Granese (edit | talk | history | 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:NOTE, I suspect it is WP:UPE as well. There are a lot of potential red flags, like the (very professional) image having been uploaded (by a Wikimedia account that has only uploaded images of this person) just days before a series of edits by an an editor with a history of promotional-toned articles about low-notability "entrepreneurs" and businesses. I could very well be wrong, and I'd welcome other thoughts, especially on WP:UPE—I don't want to throw out accusations baselessly. Bruhpedia (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Slap the City

[edit]


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

song doesn't seem to have significant coverage, beyond student newspapers. This apparently AI-generated source (which is not included in the article) was all I could find. It charted at 39 on Billboard 200, but that doesn't guarantee anything. redirec to Habibti (album) should be restored 1brianm7 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Strong keep – The song charted 39 on the Billboard 100, along with this, the music video and subsequent event was covered by more than a dozen news outlets (here are some for example).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In my opinion, this alone justifies its notability. You also said that it "charted at 39 on Billboard 200, but that doesn't guarantee anything?" What do you mean by "anything," also, it charted at 39 on the Billboard 100. The album the song was on debuted at number two on the Billboard 200. Cheromaniii (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Articles
  • By "anything" I meant that, unlike how passing some WP:SNGs provides an alternative to passing WP:GNG, WP:NSONG is explicit in songs also having to meet GNG even if they appeared on a national chart. I misremembered the article saying the song appeared at #39 on the Billboard 100 and the album appeared at #2 on the Billboard 200 as it saying that the song appeared at #39 on the Billboard 200. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@1brianm7: Thanks for clarifying NSONG, and sorry for the tone in my first reply if it came off as sharp. You are right that the chart position only suggests sources may exist. I've since added Variety, and the table below lists what the article now cites. The independent reviews from Pitchfork, Rolling Stone and Variety each talk on the song specifically. I'm not claiming the giveaway articles count toward GNG. Please rethink your decision, and if you still believe that it deserves to be redirected, we can talk about it more and I'll heavily consider it. Cheromaniii (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Your tone was fine, the apology is appreciated but unneeded. I don't see the significant coverage in the cited sources, they are talking more about the albums (perhaps releasing three albums at once is disadvantageous if one wants each song to receive sigcov?). In Rolling Stone, Slap the City is mentioned in the form of "[discussion of some songs and the album itself] ... On “Slap the City,” we’re taken back to his debut, as the beat flips the Kanye-co-produced Thank Me Later highlight “Show Me a Good Time” to riveting effect. ... [some more discussion of the songs]." In Variety, we have "[paragraph on habibti] ... After stumbling through some generic lonely-boy tropes, Drake serves up some charming situationship bars on “Slap the City,” which feels like a pre-breakup conversation in Sotto Sotto as Qendresa’s Aaliyah-esque runs hit the restaurant floor like teardrops. ... [rest of paragraph on other songs, then start of a paragraph on lowlights] ... "Drake also gets into his own way when he goes on autopilot, drifting into some placeholder playboy lyrics as he does on “Slap the City.” He’s probably just speaking his life as he sees it, but specificity is one of his best weapons, so it’s always a loss to see him discard it. ... [another paragraph on the album]". In Pitchfork, we have "[two and a half paragraphs on the album] ... For a moment, “Slap the City” revs up, and London singer Qendresa breathes life into the track with her Aaliyah-like vocal runs on the hook. Drake starts by romancing, questioning why his Toronto mansion feels so empty—so far so good—but then bitterness takes hold, and he’s talking about why his body count doesn’t count as a double standard. It all rings a bit hollow, even if it sounds hypnotic.
The longest there is from Variety, which spends a maximum of 90 words on the song, albeit I'd only say it does about 45 since the second paragraph is just using Slap the City as an example song that had placeholder lyrics. That's the length of source, detail of source, or focus on subject I would want to see in the sources of an individual song article, and I think that covering it would be better done in an individual song article. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC) Noting that I did not see Widgetkid's and Cheromaniii's replies below when I wrote this edit. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
If possible, after you've read mine and Widgetkid's replies, continue this discussion. If you want I can reply to this and we can continue discussing, though I fear it may just continue going back and forth. Cheromaniii (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Widgetkid: I do agree on the giveaway coverage, which is about the promotion and not the song. I've added a source assessment table below. Three independent reviews discuss the track itself: Pitchfork gives it a full paragraph, and Rolling Stone and Variety each comment on it in different passages. Variety's coverage is about 90 words in two passages, so I've assessed it as maybe. I don't think any one of these passes WP:100WORDS on its own, but together they give analysis of the song beyond a mention. If the closer still prefers a merge, I'd ask that the sourced material be kept in the Habibti article. Please rethink your decision, and if you still believe that it deserves to be redirected, I'll heavily consider it. Cheromaniii (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Cheromaniii, I wouldn't consider any of these as supporting notability...
  1. Pitchfork: 69 words (3 sentences), so still a trivial mention.
  2. Rolling Stone: 28 words (1 sentence), so definitely a trivial mention.
  3. Variety: 37 words (1 sentence), so definitely a trivial mention.
  4. Billboard: WP:PRIMARY, and there isn't any real depth.
  5. Queen's Journal: Clearly can't be used for notability.
1-3 sentences in a bunch of album reviews doesn't typically pass WP:NSONG. WidgetKid Converse 04:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Widgetkid: Thank you for counting every word. One correction though, Variety discusses the song in two separate passages (37 and 53 words, about 90 total), though I agree that's still under 100.
My argument is that WP:100WORDS is an essay, and GNG asks for coverage that addresses the subject directly, not a set length (see also WP:Significance is not a formula). These reviews give critical analysis of the song's lyrics, vocals and sample, which I think goes beyond the trivial-mention example in GNG.
I do understand if you still see this as better placed in the album article, and I'll keep looking for sources with more coverage. Cheromaniii (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Source assessment table prepared by User:Cheromaniii
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Habibti". Pitchfork.
 Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes ~ Review of all three albums. The song gets mentioned regarding a sample and mentioned as Habibti's highlight. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes ~ About 90 words on the song, split between two passages, one favourable, and one more critical. ~ Maybe
~ Interview with the featured artist (Qendresa), so most of it is about her experience working with Drake and her history with music. Yes ~ Talks about how the song came together, but mostly through Qendresa's quotes. ~ Maybe
Yes ~ Student newspaper, which WP:NSONG excludes in most cases. ~ About the Queen's University lyric and the reaction on campus rather than the whole song. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes No Lists the song in an adjusted tracklist. No information on it. ✘ No
Yes Yes No The song gets an extremely brief mention. ✘ No
Yes Yes No In regards to the albums' chart record, the song isn't discussed. ✘ No
Yes Yes No About the Sleep Country giveaway. The song is only the background. ✘ No
Other coverage of the Sleep Country giveaway (not used in the article: CP24, Toronto Sun, Insauga, Toronto Today, 107.5 Kool FM)
 Yes Yes No Routine news reports on the giveaway (as mentioned before), not on the song. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 06:26, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Anastasia Schipanova

[edit]


Anastasia Schipanova (edit | talk | history | 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 – I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG or the relevant notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. There are numerous citations, but several are primary or non-independent, including the subject's own website, while others are interviews, event coverage, announcements, or brief mentions that verify individual activities without providing substantial independent coverage of the subject. I also don't see significant independent critical coverage of her work as an artist or other sourcing that would clearly establish notability under WP:CREATIVE. Participation in exhibitions, fashion events and beauty pageants, as well as minor acting appearances, does not establish notability by itself. A search for additional sources does not appear to produce multiple reliable, independent secondary sources with the depth of coverage required by WP:GNG. On the available sourcing, I don't think there is enough independent coverage for a standalone biography. KrvntN (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. I think the Keep arguments need to distinguish between sources that verify individual facts and sources that provide the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG.
B-MAG’s article is a long profile about Schipanova, but it is overwhelmingly biographical and promotional in tone, with extensive repetition of her own career claims, exhibitions, awards and projects. Its existence therefore does not by itself establish significant independent coverage under GNG.
The Rambler material likewise appears to be lifestyle/profile coverage rather than substantial independent analysis of Schipanova’s work. It is useful for verifying individual facts, but I do not think it demonstrates the depth of coverage required by GNG.
CRASATO.99 also refers to a “Panorama” article as providing substantive coverage. Could the specific article be identified and explained in terms of its independent, substantial coverage of Schipanova? I think this is important because the current references do not make that source readily identifiable.
The issue is therefore not whether there are many links or whether individual facts can be verified, but whether there are multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that devote significant coverage to the subject herself. KrvntN (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Meta Runner

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

Non-notable web series. Very poor sourcing comprised entirely of primary sources or funding-related coverage. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 05:26, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Zug (website)

[edit]
Zug (website) (edit | talk | history | 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 of the content in this article is unsourced, and the article lacks proper independent secondary source coverage for WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Clothes valet

[edit]
Clothes valet (edit | talk | history | 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 is a relatively obscure type of furniture, very little independent coverage and the article reads like a WP:DICDEF DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Children's Wish Foundation of Canada

[edit]
Children's Wish Foundation of Canada (edit | talk | history | 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 Make-A-Wish because the article has hardly any content and could just be a few sentences in the main Make-A-Wish article that it has been absorbed into. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists

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

State board of psychology, does not meet WP:ORG due to the lack of independent sources, also note that none of the other 49 states have such an article for their state board of psychology and the Texas one is not much more notable. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

American Public School Endowments

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

Obscure organization with hardly any coverage to meet WP:ORG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Hilltop Heritage Middle School

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

Random local middle school with little non-trivial independent coverage to establish notability, don't see how this meets WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Firebolt (company)

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

No significant and independent coverage for NORG - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 04:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Oregon Racquetball

[edit]
Oregon Racquetball (edit | talk | history | 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 WP:SYNTH of three non-notable organizations, poor coverage by secondary sources DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Ashwani Kumar Mishra (politician)

[edit]
Ashwani Kumar Mishra (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)

Does not seem to meet notability for politician, businesspeople, BLP, or GNG - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 04:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Nicewood Park

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

Obscure local park, article sites no independent sources and none are available. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Arrest of Al Hasan

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

Non notable arrest of non notable person - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 04:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Tee

[edit]
Tee (edit | talk | history | 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 the section Golf tee, as well as Golf tees, to Teeing ground#Golf tee. I recently expanded the whole page, and the section now provides more info about golf and tees. This page is a list of golf, tee-ball, American football, and rugby tees.

This way, the existing content would not need to be removed from this page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Rakshit Tandon

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG The coverages are mostly routine including interviews, press releases, sponsored contents. There is no significant in-depth coverage required meeting notability standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Blanding, Illinois

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

Re-nominating after the previous AfD was closed as "No consensus" based on the assertion that this place had a population rather than any relevant notability guideline. There is still no solid evidence that this was a community; the only plausibly useful source (aside from a handful of obituaries) is a 1985 report from the Illinois Pollution Control Board which mentions a population of 150 in proximity to a burn area. This is the most tenuous of passing mentions and surely refers to the surrounding area, not a distinct settltment, as this location doesn't seem to have ever had enough houses to support that number of people. In any case, there is no legal recognition to meet WP:GEOLAND and no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:34, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

GameMonkey Script

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV, not covered by many independent secondary sources DirtyHarry991 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

No Sanctuary For Criminals Act

[edit]
No Sanctuary For Criminals Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources covering this bill were written within the span of a few weeks and there is no direct information on what happened to it after passing the House of Representatives. This might not meet WP:SUSTAINED. KhokcheHendi (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Chune Pattapong

[edit]
Chune Pattapong (edit | talk | history | 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 a redirect to Thailand at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Boxing as there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kurumi Mori

[edit]
Kurumi Mori (edit | talk | history | 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:ANYBIO. Sources are primary and does not provide significant independent coverage of Mori herself. - The9Man Talk 13:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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) 01:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Josh Schuberth

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

nn musician. Fails WP:GNG: no independednt in-depth coverage --Altenmann >talk 02:28, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Iosif Szilaghi

[edit]
Iosif Szilaghi (edit | talk | history | 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 Romania at the 1960 Summer Olympics#Fencing due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV needed for a standalone article on the subject. An IP added information regarding the birth and death date back in 2022, but as [] notes, there is no evidence regarding these edits and I've reverted them. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Teri Peterson

[edit]
Teri Peterson (edit | talk | history | 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 List of Playboy Playmates of 1980 because fails WP:GNG Demt1298 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Afrim Bunjaku

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

A regular police officer whose notability only comes from being the lone officer killed in the Banjska attack. A redirect to that page would be useful. Griboski (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply


  • Keep. I created this article, and I have improved it during this discussion. The nomination relies on WP:BIO1E, but that guideline does not fit this case, for three reasons.

1. He meets WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. He was posthumously awarded the Hero of Kosovo order, the country's highest state decoration, by the President of Kosovo. Notability here comes from that national honour, not only from the circumstances of his death.

2. His coverage continues independently of the event. BIO1E asks whether coverage exists only in the context of the single event. For him it has continued for three years: a state funeral with the President, Prime Minister and foreign ambassadors; a road renamed after him (Prishtina Insight, Sept 2024); a memorial academy with the Prime Minister (24 Sept 2025) and an annual wreath-laying on the national Memorial Day for fallen police officers (26 July 2026); and a memorial foundation stone laid in Banjska (Balkan Insight, 24 Sept 2026). Albania's foreign ministry and foreign diplomats have also honoured him by name. These are commemorations of him as a person, and they would not exist for the event alone.

3. BIO1E itself allows a standalone article here. It says that when the event is significant and the person's role is substantial and well documented, a separate article can be appropriate. Banjska was a major security incident for Kosovo and the region, and his death is central to it. He was the shift commander and patrol supervisor who led the response that night. The article is sourced to reliable outlets (Balkan Insight, European Western Balkans, Kosovapress, Prishtina Insight) and covers him in more detail than the main article could without weighting it unduly.

If consensus goes the other way, I ask that the closer choose a merge, which keeps the history and sourcing, rather than deletion. Kreshnik Prizreni (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kreshnik Prizreni (talk)

Stadion Pod Racinom

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

Not notable. Doesn't have independent, secondary sources. A Google search Durant fund anything that indicates WP:SIGCOV. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 01:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Allison Linnell

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only references in the article are databases, and I was unable to find anything better elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Asphalt Coatings Company, Inc.

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

The article is purely promotional with only primary sources and no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Anna Tanaka

[edit]
Anna Tanaka (edit | talk | history | 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 Meovv because this article fails to meet the requirements for WP:BANDMEMBER. The references this article relies on appear to be primarily ones that cover Meovv or specific events instead of Anna herself. The articles that cover Anna specifically appear to be promotional pieces and do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Lk.mer (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Shiroi Hada ni Kurū Ai to Kanashimi no Rondo

[edit]
Shiroi Hada ni Kurū Ai to Kanashimi no Rondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think this song is notable. Any sources listed in the article fail WP:SIGCOV by mentioning the song only in passing, and efforts to find sources that meet WP:SIGCOV failed. I believe this song fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Z. Patterson (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Lindsay Myers

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

Subject doesn't have the required WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The best I could find is [] which does have depth but was written by a special contributor and as such has unclear independence to the subject. [] is independent but only has about a paragraph of coverage. What is in the article now are merely databases, so no help there. Let'srun (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

S.S. Memorial Educational Academy, Saifai

[edit]
S.S. Memorial Educational Academy, Saifai (edit | talk | history | 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) 00:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

A. M. B.Ed. College

[edit]
A. M. B.Ed. 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) 00:11, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

[edit]
Biswanath Singh Institute of Legal Studies (edit | talk | history | 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) 00:11, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Dharmatma Inter College, Arrah

[edit]
Dharmatma Inter College, Arrah (edit | talk | history | 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) 00:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Government Polytechnic, Chapra

[edit]
Government Polytechnic, Chapra (edit | talk | history | 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:NSOURCE. Most sources I could find on GNews were all but ROUTINE Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1366585340"