Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcuts WP:AFD/TWP:AFD/T WP:AFDTODAYWP:AFDTODAY

2 August 2026

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

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< August 01	August 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Skuf

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

I propose redirecting to a List of 2020 Slang Words because of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NSUSTAINED Ashie6213 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: there doesn't appear to be a target with (or near) the title the nominator suggests. The closest I could find at a quick glance was Glossary of 2020s slang; this is not listed there. (No opinion on the article itself or whether it should remain in any form.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If the article 'Dad bod' exists, then 'Skuf' should exist as well. However, I completely understand if these and similar articles end up being merged into a broader article. Er nesto (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

After research I have decided to withdraw my AFD proposal Ashie6213 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I think the AFD should remain open, it's worth a discussion. Is this encyclopedic? Are the sources reliable? Geschichte (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

GMERS Medical College and Hospital, Dharpur-Patan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Lean keep: Found some sources - [1][2][3][4][5]. I'll request others to visit these sources to confirm if they are sufficient or not. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Globalization and World Cities Research Network

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

This article only cites the network's page as well as a book by the network's founder, none of which are independent sources. The last source, "Tourism and the branded city", mentions the network's name one single time and thus provides no in-depth coverage. Use in other publications is minimal from what could find, and also lacks depth. Cortador (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England, Organizations, and Geography. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

While not well cited and documented on Wikipedia, the Gawc cities index is produced regularly by the University of Loughborough the UK following a specific algorithm. It is widely seen as reliable. ~2026-40749-71 (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

if that is the case, then we should expect and require there to be credible sources available to confirm it. Are you able to provide any? Gryfia (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

It's not well-cited and document at all, not just on Wikipedia. And it's "widely seen as reliable" by whom? Cortador (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The individuals responsible for the creation of this think tank look pretty legit, especially since it's affiliated with a university. I think format-wise the article isn't too different from other articles (e.g. various democracy indices or other existing globalization indices) that throw out a ranking, with maybe a methodology, and that's it; in terms of the reliability of this source, it's sort of circular in that it is reliable because it is attached to a university (lots of peer review, scrutiny, etc) and universities (and institutions like this attached to them) are thus reputable as well.

In terms of citations, I found this piece from the Brookings Institution that uses GaWC data for its research: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20050222_worldcities.pdf

This other paper using that same data (it is written by the founders of the think tank) has 844 citations by other scholars/publications which you can see if you click on the citations page: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275199000426

So I'd assume brookings and the amount of citations the ScienceDirect article has implies that they consider this think tank (and the people running it who wrote the sciencedirect piece) as reputable individuals within the academic niche of urban studies. It also seems consultancies utilize similar datasets too; A.T. Kearney has their own version of this index for their purposes. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Neither source provides in-depth coverage of the actual think tank, and both papers are from one of the founders of the think tank, Peter Taylor. Of course the founder of the think tank would consider his own think tank reliable.

These sources are not independent and do not contribute to coverage by reliable sources independent from the subject of the article. Cortador (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Reading through the Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources, the source itself is still reliable; the think tank founders wouldn't be published by Brookings or ScienceDirect. These organizations have vetted the authors prior to publication; the sources I attached are not self-published if that's what you're trying to say, nor do university professors often meet the Wikipedia criteria for "questionable sources". I also don't think they would be backed by their university if they were quacks, and Brookings/ScienceDirect vetting means this meets the criteria for reliable scholarship given they don't just publish anyone and meet the criteria for independent sources/vetters.

You also haven't discussed how 844 citations the ScienceDirect article has; JSTOR has also citations for this think tank too per the deletion infobox: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Globalization+and+World+Cities+Research+Network%22&acc=on&wc=on&so=rel. Perhaps some of them could be incorporated into this article, but the sciencedirect/elvesier article written by the founders of the think tank pioneers the methodology the entire think tank and this article's ranking rests on, and it has been cited 844 times by other publications. So this methodology/ranking that the think tank promotes definitely has notability, appears in other publications, etc as Wikipedia criteria describes.

I don't disagree that many articles like this (rankings of X based on Y methodology, like various articles for democracy indices and whatnot) lack depth as you originally stated, but I just think it's the nature of such articles as a whole; a lot of pages will literally just list countries by GDP or population with even less substance than this article and that seems to be fine as far as everyone on Wikipedia's concerned. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Reliability alone doesn't contribute to notability. We need in-depth coverage by independent sources for this think tank to be notable, and we don't have that.

Other articles having the same issue isn't an argument to keep this article, it's an argument to delete them as well as per OTHERSTUFF. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I'm curious if the 844 academic citations from other independent scholars and non-think tank publications/publishing houses not count for notability? The methodology this think tank pioneered seems like a widely cited and employed methodology in the niche field of urban studies and a lot of these citations are independent. Some merely cite its data, some compare various methodologies for evaluating cities, some critique the idea of city-rankings entirely, etc. Feel free to dig through the citations, I've attached two academic pieces that center around the GaWC below:

This academic paper gets really into the nitty gritty when evaluating the correlation between the GaWC and immigration: https://gum.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5166/files/downloads/Immigration%20and%20World%20Cities.pdf.

This book critiques the hierarchy of cities citing the GaWC for being too centered on Advanced Producer Services like accounting etc: Rethinking UrbanismLessons from Postcolonialism and the Global South By Garth Myers

Here is an article from another think tank formally highlighting the GaWC at Loughborough University as the pioneer of academic research into global city networks: https://globalaffairs.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/On_Global_Cities.pdf

This one from the Greater London Authority mentions the importance of Greater London maintaining its status as a world class city, citing its GaWC ranking: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/future_of_the_central_activities_zone.pdf. I think this one is quite significant.

It also seems to be notable enough that Chinese state media and the Michelin Guide would make reference to these rankings: https://en.people.cn/n3/2017/1208/c90000-9302263.html https://guide.michelin.com/us/en/article/travel/chefs-travel-accra-ghana

Feel free to submit articles like List of countries by GDP (nominal) or Cato Institute(which really just cites itself for 90% of the article) for deletion, although I would assume there's a good reason those articles are up if nobody's successfully deleted these widely-visited articles in the past 20 years. Overall I don't see much reason to delete articles like this and I think despite its nicheness it's clearly notable given how widely cited and employed the think tank's methodology and how it pioneered city-rankings per the Chicago think tank piece (and obviously reliable) enough. I'll say keep, although I won't disagree the article could have more content. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

None of these articles provides independent in-depth coverage of the think tank, which is what we need.

If you feel that there are other equally poorly-sourced articles, you can nominate them for deletion. I'm not doing that for you. Cortador (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

If you want people to cite something specific, you need to be specific about what you want them to cite. "In-depth coverage of the think tank" is as vague as you can possibly be. What kind of coverage qualifies? What doesn't? What are the rules? Are the rules stated anywhere on Wikipedia? Don't ad hoc this, otherwise you come across as a denialist. Chris Weimer (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoconutOctopus talk 08:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I think there is plenty of in-depth coverage given how there are many articles too that provide criticism or utilization of this think tank and the methodology it created as well as I mentioned prior. Both of us have come to a consensus the reliability of the source (an accredited university) is not an issue. Moreso the issue is now notability.

The two sources I described, not to mention some of the 844 citations the sciencedirect publication pioneering the categorization of cities into Alpha, Beta, and Gamma cities, and numerous other academic works have made explicit mention and cover the GaWC by name and make use of its methodology/terminology from independent academics/journals/publications. The think tank has been explicitly named, the founders/members have numerous citations, the methodology and terminology have numerous mentions as well. Some of these are new sources, some of these are sources I mentioned prior. There are 844 publications that cite PJ Taylor/GaWC's pioneering methodology, per examples listed below.

Note per WP:NCORP, significant coverage is defined as an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization (vs say a name-drop in the Michelin Guide article I linked, which is a trivial mention that does not say much else about the GaWC). I feel that all of the articles below meet this standard. The "product," aka its methodology and publications from its affiliated scholars (as this is what a think tank produces) with this think tank, have been subject to significant analysis, study, description, overviews in many papers, evaluations, etc. I think it is important to keep that in mind as we evaluate whether or not the think tank has been covered; I don't think my fellow editor was aware of that wording in WP:NCORP. Even if say, "product" somehow does not count, the GaWC has been mentioned, discussed, evaluated, etc by name as well.

Here is one article that evaluates the GaWC as it evaluates different methodologies of ranking cities: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090951620301103

This is a criticism/evaluation of the GaWC methodology pioneered by PJ Taylor as deficient and centers around the GaWC directly and in depth: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-69494-1

Independent, non-trivial coverage/overview/description of the GaWC as an organization is in this publication as well by a Slovakian scholar(so independent too): https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/9/3/83

PhD Thesis conducing an evaluation of the GaWC in relation to the predictability of large law firm geography: https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/9wwvy/to-what-extent-has-research-conducted-by-the-gawc-research-network-aided-our-understanding-of-large-eu-law-firm-geography

https://gum.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5166/files/downloads/GlobalizationfromBelow.pdf

The above article discusses the GaWC as it explicitly identifies the network by name to contrast their own approach centered around immigration against GaWC's research agenda. It explicitly names and critiques the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) research framework as an institutional paradigm in urban geography. They dedicate substantial analysis towards evaluating the limitations of the GaWC economic ranking model compared to socio-cultural metrics, in this case immigration. I think it's a good independent secondary source directly evaluating the research network's core output and conceptual model.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090951618306473?casa_token=bIWvvrCAyTkAAAAA:JmTiXdI6Tq7pLwGbLpxW8GkGs-m7jlBzYk-VYna9up_3-uhQ0JgJV_3RjOB-_XwYBv-QggIw

The above paper tells us something very important about the GaWC and why it's a bigger deal than other city rankings, because , to quote, "Unlike other lists of major world cities such as those by Beaverstock, Smith, and Taylor, (1999)) and MasterCard (2008), the lists by the GaWC Research Network are available for several years and thus allow for a dynamic classification of global cities as investment locations." This signifies the importance of the GaWC as an organization in the niche field of urban studies from an independent secondary source; while brief, I would say this qualifies as significant coverage as it is quite a valuable piece of commentary that exemplifies why this methodology and organization are notable within this academic field (in that unlike other rankings it conducts its rankings frequently as to have a big impact on being able to classify global cities as investment locations).

I'm not sure what the bar for think tank "coverage" is, but it seems that the GaWC as an organization has been at least mentioned, analyzed, critiqued, discussed, etc in numerous academic publications to qualify for keeping based on the criteria below.

Here are the exact notability guidelines for organizations per WP:NCORP:

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth (see above examples)

Be completely independent of the article subject (yes, given these academics don't have affiliation with the university or the think tank)

Meet the standard for being a reliable source (yes, given publication in reputable academic journals or by accredited universities with peer review standards and vetting much higher than say, us on Wikipedia)

Be a secondary source (yes)

Other editors feel free to provide your viewpoints, but several million people have passed through this article and this article hasn't been successfully deleted since creation in 2010. There are maybe 830 citations left to dig through for anyone else looking to find a significant/notable mention of the GaWC. I suspect that think tank articles, even if not fleshed-out articles or a bit niche, resist deletion due to widespread "significant coverage" of their "product" (methodology, statistics, scholars) in academic literature to meet notability requirements. E.g. V-Dem democracy index. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stop with the long strangely formatted comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Sri Aurobindo School, Sambalpur

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

Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield any sources with SIGCOV....just some directories and listicles. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Odisha. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Lilly Drogerie

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Nearly all citations are to the company's own websites. Lone Wolf ^howl 08:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Lone Wolf ^howl 08:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to founder Mladen Grujić. WP:ATD exists. But I won't be surprised if someone uncovers coverage in local Serbian sources. ~2026-41539-18 (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This is the coverage in Serbian news site regarding the acquisition Mladen Grujić postao vlasnik Lilija - B92 Gvozden69 (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Added some external source for the provided data albeit in Serbian and Greek language. Gvozden69 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Snov.io

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no independent, in-depth coverage. Lone Wolf ^howl 09:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Lone Wolf ^howl 09:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of New York-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There is no notability and fails WP:NCORP. ~2026-41539-18 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Aji Senior Secondary School

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

Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE yielded nothing with SIGCOV....just some directories and listicles. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

WONA Concept

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

Typical corporate spam, previously speedy deleted under the title WONÁ Concept, but this time the speedy was declined as "not promotional"... Perhaps they were looking at a different article, but this is blatant spam, and the fact that this is the second try under a different title suggests UPE. We have no room for more brochures on Wikipedia. MediaKyle (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Ukraine. MediaKyle (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Miss Puerto Rico's Outstanding Teen

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

Reason Fails to meet GNG with a single source. Proposed for deletion earlier this year as "Tagged as Unreferenced for 8 years", then de-PRODded with erroneous edit summary "all state level pageants have a page", and then a single citation added, which does not constitute a meaningful improvement vis a vis GNG. My own WP:BEFORE failed to turn up reliable sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. This does not meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Source files

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

I propose redirecting to Source code because it offers nothing that can't be a short section there (if that). Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

redirect as suggested — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep

[COI: doing citizen research « Open Source 2.0: From Open Source Software to Open Source Resources?, therefore working on improvement of open source and open-source software pages]

Hello, I did this change, it was previously redirecting to source code as mentionned in Talk:Source files. I saw the page exists while trying to create a red link to 'source files', seeing it redirecting to source code being inapropriate for the expected use.

So obviously against the redirect. We can see source file terminology being used in various fields, the current references provide use cases of source files with documents in research (.tex/.md → .pdf), in education (.odt/.docx/.h5p → .pdf/.html), for hardware components (.kicad/.FCStd → .gerber/.stl), image design (.psd/.xcf → .png/.jpg, wikipedia having recommendation to publish them on Wikipedia:Image source files), fonts (.sfd/.glyphs → .ttf/.otf), movies (.blend/.kdenlive → .mp4/.mkv), could be in music (.als/.flp → .mp3) also, and the list is probably non-exhaustive.

This has nothing to do with software source code, creating subsections in source code for these formats would be conceptual inconsistency. Source code is a type of source file, not the other way around. Could be important to get separate source files page to explain editability of digital resources. @Jerod Lycett and GhostInTheMachine: Could you develop your position in light of these arguments for the redirect? Thanks in advance. AbcSxyZ (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

IMHO, those are also variants of source code, just markup language code as opposed to runnable code. Also, page titles don't have to be synonyms for a redirect to be necessary. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 20:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Are markdown files seriously a source code for you ? As it's not described as such on wikipedia at least, as Markup language is not described as source code either, as source code page do not explain markup language (just linked in see also). AbcSxyZ (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Those are source code. They get compiled into the end result, whether that's an executable or not. Java traditionally gets compiled into a .jar which still needs an interpreter, the JVM. A movie or image etc. is no different. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Yes there is this similarity from an initial format to an end format, a "compilation", that's why there are called source files accross domains and this structural similarity is exactly the argument for a dedicated article on the concept. But strongly disagree with the rational that 'it's source code':

1/ Source code is about programming languages, this is not programming languages.

2/ Source code is about human readable format, some type of source files can be binary (ex:psd/blend files)

3/ People simply don't refer it as source code, but source files. Because it's not programming language and they are not software developer. You're trying to override existing terminology usage against (incorrect) technical reality.

What explanation of "source code" would coherently cover all these cases while remaining consistent? The explanation of source code would have to be changed, in contradiction with all existing explanations of the notion. Because none of this is about source code. AbcSxyZ (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect Even PC Mag refers on to source code. There does not appear to be enough to distinguish the two and make this independently notable. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
There are some links on Google Scholar however [6] ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

What about the second definition? Which is not about source code.

And their current definition support the point I've just added. It's the file that contains the source code, it's not source code in itself. AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Even from a programming perspective the redirect is certainly conceptually wrong.

Source code is the instructions, the content, while the source file is the container of the source code. Some cases where source code may not be stored in source files (see https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/220781/source-code-vs-source-files). AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

With everyone supporting the redirect it seems I will have to add all of these things into source code page to reveal how absurd is all of this... Wtf debate lol, but revealing the state of consideration to source files beyond software. I will let you explain why we speak about hardware cad file into source code page 😂 AbcSxyZ (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I feel like all the ref I brought worth nothing. There is a problem here. 18 ref outside software covering 6-7 fields... AbcSxyZ (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Two recent Wikipedia edits link to source files from Open source#Fonts and Open-source hardware — if you think a redirect to "source code" seems coherent in those contexts. AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Was also added to Open educational resources#Open Source Educational Resources AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Yep. Makes perfect sense. I feel like maybe you should invite whoever it is that added those links to come join in the conversation, see if they think it makes sense too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

It's me actually. So ok if that makes sense for you... but at this point I (tried) to deconstruct every single arguments and even the fact that for software source files and source code are two different things, I can't do more 😅 Waiting for more external pov on my side. AbcSxyZ (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

+ provide a source stating that CAD files, font source files, or educational source files are "source code". Without that, this is an unsourced opinion rather than an argument for the redirect. AbcSxyZ (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

In the context of software development, a source file is a file containing source code.^[1]^[2] The two terms are therefore distinct: source code refers to the program text, while a source file refers to the file in which that text is stored.

References

^ "Source File". PC Magazine Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2026-07-19.
^ Meredith, Alisdair; Hughes, Lori (2025-05-19). Input Files Are Source Files (PDF) (Report). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21.

A little sentence added to the page dedicated to all of you. Now provide sources explaining that source code and source files are the same thing to support this redirect. Sources, not opinions. Therefore, as distinct notions, they do not satisfy any of the purposes of redirects. AbcSxyZ (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

keep but swap Source files with Source file to make the main article the singular version. Source files should be a redirect to Source file — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oh yeah, not alone anymore! Champagne 🥂 And agree with the swap. AbcSxyZ (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Jerodlycett & @Metallurgist You maintain your position ? No consensus ? Being not really a matter of personal opinion but technical reality.

As source file & source code are distinct even from a software perspective and source file notion being used in other domains without reference to source code as it's not about programming language at all, just as an editable element. The fact that there is a transformation process turns it into something analogous but distinct from software.

In light of the sources and arguments provided, I see no basis that would justify this redirect. AbcSxyZ (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

That you fail to see something doesn't change the facts that a source file contains the code used, whether it's compiled like C, interpreted, like Perl, SVG, LaTeX, and XML, it's still code. Java's bytecode isn't even human readable and yet is a source file that is code. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

So if the source file contains the source code, the source file in itself is something different from the code. It sounds like a maintain with an argument that prove the distinction. In some ways, if we speak about the fact that everything is binary code, then I may agree 🙃

« In computing, source code, or simply code or source, is human readable plain text that can eventually result in controlling the behavior of a computer » (cf Wikipedia)

Not human readable, not source code.

Bytecode (also called portable code or p-code) is an instruction set designed for efficient execution by a software interpreter. Unlike human-readable source code, [...] (cf Wikipedia)

Bytecode is not source code.

You wrongly conflate source code and source file. AbcSxyZ (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Sridevi Apalla

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

WP:TOO EARLY. Move to a draft or redirect to Court: State vs a Nobody. All of the sources are routine announcements about her upcoming film. No significant independent reliable coverage. DareshMohan (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

R. D. Raja

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

Similar to [7], the sources are not independent of the subject or are passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Redirect to Remo, his most significant work. DareshMohan (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment, no opinion on notability, but I oppose a redirect, as I see no evidence Remo is the film he is mostly associated to, and those looking for this person would be better served by the search results page, listing all his credits and not just one. --Cavarrone 18:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Coat of arms of Meath

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

I propose merging to County Meath because the article has existed since 2007, and could easily be a section titled "symbols" or something. No need for full article currently (maybe a list of coat of arms of irish counties could be made! I'd be willing to help, but dunno if thats too relevant) Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment. While I'm inclined to support a merge/redirect somewhere (as the text is relatively short, has been for a long time, and could likely be covered with improved context in the article on the place the arms represent), I'm not sure the proposed target is ideal. Can the nom elaborate more on the proposed target? What would a "symbols" section in the County Meath article look like? And, perhaps, would Kingdom of Meath not be a better place for such a section (and redirect target)? I say this for several reasons. Not least that the coat of arms given in the infobox for County Meath is the arms of the county council, which is different to the historic arms (and trying to cover both in the article on the modern county could be confusing/complicating)?... Guliolopez (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
A symbols section on that article would include details on the county council's arms and the historic arms (and the county colours if theres enough that could be written about them from reliable sources). To get an example; Roxburghshire has a Coat of Arms section, which I imagine this would look similar to

I do think that merging to kingdom of meath is also a good idea. Maybe both could be done? Dont see any harm in merging to both Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi. While we could perhaps briefly discuss the arms in a "symbols" section of both County Meath and Kingdom of Meath, the redirect (resulting from a merge/redirect) can only be to one title. Personally, as above, I think Kingdom of Meath is a more appropriate target. And, as it stands, don't support a merge/redirect to County Meath. But would support a merge/redirect to Kingdom of Meath. (For the simple reason that the subject arms are not (or are no longer) the arms of County Meath. But are the historical arms of the Kingdom of Meath.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that we could merge to both and have the redirect go to kingdom of meath, as that is the origin of them Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi. While a "merge to both" is not a good idea, I would support merging the bulk of the content to a section of Kingdom of Meath and making Coat of arms of Meath a redirect to that section. The County Meath article could contain a small amount of relevant text, in summary style, with a link to the main article/target/section. Guliolopez (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose merge to County Meath, mostly for the reasons laid out by Guliolopez but also because I see no great need for any merge. The article is not too short to be useful (compare Emblems of the Kalmar Union, Coat of arms of Congress Poland etc.). It does the job. Meanwhile, a lot of the (admittedly interesting) info in the current page would be a little extraneous in Kingdom of Meath and County Meath. References in both Kingdom of Meath and probably County Meath as in Guliolopez's latest comment would be helpful. That said, if other heraldry etc. relating to the Kingdom of Meath are found I would support renaming to accommodate them. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep/Oppose Merge As I see it this article does its job well enough and would, as said above, feel out of place elsewhere. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

History of the Jews in East Africa

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

There is no reason for this page to exist, it should be taken care of by the algorithm per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. If anything, a broad concept article should exist, and returning this to a red link might encourage the creation of such a thing. That is assuming that this topic would be notable, which it probably is. However, if it is not, then there is no reason to do original research by way of inappropriate synthesis

WP:DABCONCEPT says "A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual." HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Africa, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Bala Wunti

AfDs for this article:

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

There is only routine coverage of his work, announcements and interviews. Several of the sources are just re-run versions of the same appointment/exit announcements. Not much has changed since the previous AfD and if deleted, the title should be salted. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Abu Mu'az al-Jeddawi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No sigcov on google books, nothing at all on google scholar, and only one newspaper on google news HerrHeulsuse (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Islam, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Weak Keep Found some coverage which I think makes it pass WP:GNG CNN: [[8]] Washington Post: [[9]] the Guardian: [[10]]. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No, these only mention the subject in a list. This is not WP:SIGCOV since these secondary sources do not cover this guy in depth. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge with Fawaz Yahya al-Rabeei since they are the same person. ~2026-39560-42 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

You must provide reliable sources proving this. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nom. Hsnkn (talk) 23:00, 25 July 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)} 05:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign

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

This page has, for a while now, been severely neglected. It has had tags up for well over a year now with little to no attempt by editors to address and fix this page, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that this isn’t likely to change. To add onto the already overwhelming problems of this page, it is also effectively a fork of the Luhansk Oblast campaign page, with half of its content either already detailed there or being much better fit there.

This page itself serves little to no purpose other than being an updated version of the Luhansk Oblast campaign, which is already this page’s parent article. I believe that because of the above reasons, this page should be merged back into Luhansk Oblast campaign, with the latter being updated as a whole. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Roxana Rose Daneshjou

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

Fails GNG, all sources either entirely lack significant coverage or fail to be independent. Scholar and JSTOR don't support SNG. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nom. Sourcing is weak too and many mention the subject in passing. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 17:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep, verging on speedy keep. This is another nomination of an academic for all the wrong reasons, without a proper analysis being done. The main criteria to use is WP:NPROF. From her Google Scholar profile her h-factor is 40 with 9.5K cites. Normally that would be a little WP:TOOSOON, but if you look at her citations/year there was a massive jump to ~3K in 2025 and 2026 already has ~2.4K so will almost certainly surpass that. She also has strong positions as first or last author on a number of well cited papers. While it is still a little early, on her current trajectory she will ~~pass~~ be very notable in 1-2 years at most, the evidence is strong that she is a rapidly rising star. If I couple this with the mistaken nomination it is a Keep as notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Then in 1-2 years maybe an article could be created. It's not mistaken, per your own statement she does not currently pass notability. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
My vote was Keep based upon her being notable enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Oklahoma Lake

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

The lake fails WP:GNG. The article presents no indication of notability. The only source listed is a primary source. It also seems promotional in nature, as evidenced by the fact that it was created by an SPA. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related AfD discussions. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Adolfo Plasencia

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

Notabilíty has not been demonstrated for this living person. I could not find significant coverage of him in reliable sources in Spanish. He seems to be an average tech journalist. WP:BLP JohnMizuki (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment. I can't see any assertion of notability through either NPROF or GNG, however there is at least one academic review[11] of his "From Neurons to..." book as well as short blurbs[12][13] prefacing interviews about it, and another blurb prefacing an interview in one of the same newspapers about his "Hologram" book. These aren't enough for NAUTHOR, but it might be worth looking to find more. JoelleJay (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Bernard Qualtrough

AfDs for this article:

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

Article consists of a single sentence and has not been updated since a no consensus AfD in 2015. I have found a primary RS that confirms the character existed and was played by Richard Johnson. This information is already covered in the articles for Spooks (TV series) and Richard Johnson (actor). Cannot find any other reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV that would demonstrate notability. Dfadden (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dfadden (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Souri

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

I can't find any evidence that this place exists. It doesn't appear in Bing Maps, Google Maps, or Wikimapia, and its wikidata coordinates (10.844096, 2.828979) place it within the town of Gogounou. It also doesn't show up in census data for the Alibori Department, unlike other towns. I suspect it may have arisen as a typo for the nearby town of Sori, Benin, or possibly "Souru", which appears in northeastern Kandi commune in this UN map.

No other wiki pages reference this town except for the disambiguation page for Sori. The page's history seems to show that there's never been any other useful information at any point to help find evidence of this town's existence. Local Internet User (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Benin. Local Internet User (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Corruption at FIFA

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

I propose merging this recently created page into FIFA because all of this information can be concisely summarized in a dedicated section on that page. These types of articles are frequently requested and created around World Cup season but serve to mainly place undue weight on the topic and coat-rack routine (even off-topic) news coverage. These types of articles also seek to advertise books and media programs "covering" corruption at FIFA (see also section). Lastly, notable corruption is featured in stand-alone article such as 2015 FIFA corruption case, so duplicate information is frequently on these articles. Peripteros (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related AfD discussions. Peripteros (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Monopoly money

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

Pretty sure this fails GNG. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Games-related AfD discussions. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Dr Vidyadhara S

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

WP:PROMO and 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) 01:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Sanskar Bharti

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

I'm nominating this for delete as there aren't available online English references to the history and origin of Sanskar Bharti besides the primary source (the organization's website) to prove it. This entity seems to be an office or administrative arm of a political party in India called RSS. I'd have considered merge if there were available secondary articles. ABehjat (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Politics, and India. ABehjat (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete because of no significant secondary coverage. Entychologist (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: for clarity, English Wikipedia sources are not required to be in English, they are simply preferred when available. That of course can be a moot point if there is no SIGCOV in any language. (No opinion on that front.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - my searches on Google News and Books found dozens of potential sources, in English. Some are self-published, some are passing mentions, and others are clearly not independent of the cultural organization or its political affiliation; but there are a few that constitute significant coverage, and I added two such sources. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC) P.S. Obviously, this is not an endorsement of the subject or of RSS; it's just a fact of notability. Nobody claims that Fox News is not notable, because it's basically the media wing of a major political party. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Brij Bhoomi (film)

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

It is a promotional article of a film. The article was made by a blocked user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTarget2027 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The Sanskaar Valley School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: Additional searches yielded a number of ROUTINE reportages about some events in that school....but nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Fountainhead School

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2015, but that was under the lower standards of the era where notability was simply assumed for most if not all schools of this type. (The second nomination came only a month after the first one ended–well within the six-month window under which a kept article should not be renominated, and quickly failed accordingly within a day.) No opinion on if this meets the stricter standards of 2026. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: Additional searches yielded two school press release articles and some road incident coverage that involved students of this school.........none of which constitute SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Bright School, Vadodara

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: Found nothing with SIGCOV in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. Ping me if sources are located. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Velalar Vidyalayaa Senior Higher Secondary School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to Thindal, Erode, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Just another ROTM institute. Additional searches yielded nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Carmel School, Rourkela

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Namaw

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

Not sure if this exists. There is a Namaw village but it is in the Banmauk township. And the closest village I spotted in GMaps on the Homalin township is a settlement called Namchaw. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Myanmar. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Kokkiliyar River

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

Not sure if this actually exist. GSearch didn't show anything except Grok. I also looked at Palni Hills in GMaps but I can't find the exact river this is pointing to. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Reedy Creek Dam

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

Confused this dam with the other one in New South Wales which at least is mentioned in government reports and in the media. I should not have de-prodded. No coverage found via the Internet Archive, Google Books, and Elsevier. Spurious matches via EBSCO. Does not meet WP:GNG and appears not to meet WP:GEOLAND either. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: I looked for solid coverage but came up short. Charlie Zachary Allen Roth (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete I tried to find reliable sources for this article which has been tagged as unreferenced since 2011. I was unable to locate any sources to demonstrate notability - all I came across was a real estate listing for the adjacent property that listed it by a different name, which was why I originally PRODded the article. Dfadden (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. In real life I think Reedy Creek Dam should have all the geolocation data removed from it and then become a redirect to Centennial Coal, because the NSW is more notable than the one in Queensland. But maybe it's cleaner to delete it first. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

[1] "Source File". PC Magazine Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2026-07-19.

[2] Meredith, Alisdair; Hughes, Lori (2025-05-19). Input Files Are Source Files (PDF) (Report). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21.

[1]

[2]

This page was redesigned at the edge.