I propose redirecting to 660s BC per WP:DECMER. This was done, but the redirect got contested. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Why does an airline's business class need its own article? I would suggest merging but I think anything more than what's already included in JetBlue#Seating would be WP:NOTTRAVELCubnorth (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to Honda NSX (second generation)#Engine and powertrain as everything in this article already exists in the target article, there is no reason for this to exist as this engine was made exclusively for the car. BuffaloTaro (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 19:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
'''Keep''' - Would the Navbharat Times and Indian Express articles cited in the references not already help the article meet GNG? After a quick search there seems to be other sources that could be used beyond these as well. B.P. Koirala (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Bhiwandi-Nizampur Municipal Corporation. B.P. Koirala, the Navbharat Times and ABP Majha pieces are real bylined profiles, so the depth is there. But both ran on 20 February, the afternoon of the result, and the rest sits in the same few days, which is one news cycle rather than the sustained coverage WP:GNG wants. Mayor of a municipal corporation isn't a WP:NPOL pass on its own, and i found nothing from outside that window, so redirect for now and split back out if later coverage builds a fuller biography. EmilyR34 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you mention those sources here? Wisher08 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Alright, that's fair, thanks for the explanation. This is the first AfD I've commented on, so I'm still getting a grasp on all the notability requirements tbh. I struggled to find coverage outside of February as well, all I found was this one article from The Free Press Journal that was written in September [1]. B.P. Koirala (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 19:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to The Suisse Normande because they are both related and it is very much part of the same area so would make sense being merged. The current article mentions it in passing but, it is the defining feauture of the suisse Normande so would work well merged. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to The Suisse Normande. I looked for independent coverage. Most of what exists is tourism-board material (Normandy Tourism, Orne Tourisme, the local tourist office), which isn't independent. The one in-depth independent piece I found is a Tendance Ouest article (20 July 2020) on the 118 m cliff, its geology and its espace naturel sensible status. That's thin for a standalone page, and the main content fits well in the Suisse Normande article, which already covers the rock. Side note: since nobody is arguing for deletion, this could also have been raised on the article talk page per WP:MERGEPROP. WikiGK16 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep clearly passes WP:GEONATURAL. This is eligible for its own page. Not sure what good a merge does. SportingFlyerT·C 20:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I have to agree with SportingFlyer here. The French version of this article was created over 18 years ago (in February 2008) by Rundvald; it is a prominent item in The Suisse Normande, but not the only one, and there's no call to merge them all into one article. This English article was originally translated from the French version and was created in April 2009. And even the typically stringent German wikipedia created an article in July 2011. I'm not saying merge would be the end of the world, it just doesn't seem warranted on the argument of the nomination.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I just feel it would be easier to read and would improve the quality of the article, not much policy logic from me, to be honest. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I would appreciate it if more editors could give opinions here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 19:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The article does not establish that the subject meets WP:GNG. The cited sources do not provide significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. AriuCH (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
just to clarify, is the issue related to the sources being in arabic?, or do you consider the sources insufficient in terms of significant independent coverage?
i would appreciate any specific guidance on what kind of sources would be needed to establish compliance with WP
Query: the cited sources seem to be, at least from the English translations of their titles, to be WP:SIGCOV: I see "Ali Mansour Al-Kayyali's Approach by Using Context to Understand the Qur'anic Text", and "Linguistic Interpretation of Ali Mansour Kayali: A Critical Analytical Study". If these are decent, peer-reviewed journals, then this would be an easy WP:GNG pass. Now, one of those links is broken, but this one, at least through my browser's automatic translation, seems legitimate. What's the argument here -- that they're not SIGCOV, that they're not independent, or they're not RS? UndercoverClassicistT·C 19:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I read through the sources, but I couldn't find much coverage of Kayali himself. They seem to focus more on his specific interpretations than on him as a person. AriuCH (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Couldn't find reliable sources online. Shows random people named Myint Aung, not the director. SVcode(Talk) 16:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. One of the citations is an article from The Guardian, but it's a collection of actual shaggy dog stories, rather than a review of the trailer. I couldn't find anything myself either. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This fails WP:NCRIME and WP:LASTING, as most of the coverage is from February to March 2016. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Uche Pedro. The blog itself has limited coverage and can be a section on its owner's article as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. 🄻os🄰 16:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Won runner-up in a pageant back in 2015. No major coverage since then, and the coverage that exists is routine coverage or WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. 🄻os🄰 16:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The quiet neighborhood of Baltimore, with all its unique characteristics. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. I searched sources in Google, Google Books and Google News and all I can find is real estate websites or TripAdvisor. I suggest to Delete or redirect to List of Baltimore neighborhoods.
Probably better off withdrawing this and nominating them all individually as the articles are in very different states - some are superstubs, some have unsourced prose, some have sourced but not inline prose. SportingFlyerT·C 19:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete references are connected to the company, most references are just brief mentions, and it heavily fails WP:NORG, not to mention they sound completely promotional. Emmanbotan🌹 (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Author here. This is part of a project I am working on to shore up Wikipedia coverage of conferences and trade outlets covering social impact and professional development topics. This is a mainstream/accredited publication and conference series. Happy to edit but I don't see promotional language here, can the nominator point out the promotional wording within the article? Also note that trade media outlets are usually cited or their content is covered rather than being "profiled" by other outlets in the same space. (vote to keep obviously and also happy to edit if given specific concerns) WilsonP NYC (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Substantial coverage in multiple publications and search reveals more including TV News coverage. Also, nominator's edit appears to have confused user generated content with a syndicated editorial article.Jeanwelsh (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jeanwalsh: What do you mean substantial coverage? Most references are quite literally brief mentions. Also I can't find any coverage of TV News, unless you can give the sources, otherwise, This is clearly not notable enough Emmanbotan🌹 (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep. There are a number of sources used in the article, and more provided above. Would benefit from some additional since a few are passing mentions, but appears to be enough coverage for at least a stub article. OhNoKaren (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Stephen Koepp, a co-founder. The sourcing that is available is limited to brief mentions. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 06:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Stephen Koepp. I went through the 12 sources. (1) was 404 for me. (2) is a brief quote from Koepp. (3) is a corporate database entry. (4-5) are 1-2 lines apiece saying From Day One organized a conference. I can't see all of (6) due to paywall but it looks to be the same as (7-10, 12) which are quotes from other people about other topics, from panels, interviews, conversations, or polls at the conference. (That is, the only connection to From Day One is that these words were spoken at a From Day One conference.) (11) is the company's own materials. That's it. There's nothing qualifying as SIGCOV here. You couldn't even make an article about the conference, and there is vastly more sourcing about that than about the company. M kuhner (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Page on an academic biologist with an h-factor (Scopus) of 11 and 681 cites --- far from passing WP:NSCHOLAR#C1. Awards are all minor, either undergraduate or for teaching. No major awards, no SIGCOV, zero evidence of notability. PROD was deleted so now AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Ldm1954 has it exactly right: Nowhere near being notable. Athel cb (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Junior professor that is good at their job, but nothing notable. This isn't a Nobel-winning educator, just a person that does good things. Does not meet PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
WP: GNG is the first basis on which to consider notability. Absolutely no one suggested she met NPROF. The question is solely if she meets GNG on the basis of SIGCOV IRS. Mme Maigret (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
No, they appear to be a working professor. Professors publish things, that what this person does. That's not notable. We need to see why this person is different than others. It's very routine work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom rationale. Associate professors are not considered notable. The awards are also not anything upto major standard. WP:TOOSOON also applies. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 00:19, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment while her creation of a program where graduate students mentor high-school students is commendable, it is worth pointing out that she did not invent this idea and it is very common. If you do a Google search on "graduate student high school outreach program" for me it brought up the four existing ones in Chicago. The one at Northwestern University has been going at least 30 years, probably others are similar. (You can add "My Town" at the end for other cities, e.g. Oxford, Montreal, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Nairobi etc.)Ldm1954 (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 The article had 1 arguable piece of sig cov (Cambridge Times) before you PROD'd it and I added a second (the Waterloo Record) before you AfD'd it. I'm at a loss as to why you think her venture has to be a novel one or why she needs to meet NPROF before meeting WP:GNG. Mme Maigret (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mmemaigret, you are really stretching here. The Cambridge Times article is not close to SIGCOV. The article is about high-school students who need tutors and includes 200 words about the charity, nothing about her. The other one is paywalled, but one is not close to enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 I don't see how you could have read the Cambridge article if you think it says nothing about her. Mme Maigret (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
She has a cursory mention. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 The entire second column on page 4 is a cursory mention?! Mme Maigret (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Both articles discuss her in the context of the charity, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies; the charity might be notable. Note: there is no notability criteria that applies to people who create/lead not-for-profits where the organisation is notable and gets coverage, but (deliberately) the focus is on the cause. That is a separate issue, and until one is created via an RfC (which I might well support) it will remain a hole. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO apply to everyone. So, I understand correctly, you didn't sight the complete Cambridge Times article before the nomination and you didn't sight the Waterloo Region Record article at all, but having now sighted them, your view is unchanged? Mme Maigret (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I think a qualitative sanity check makes sense here. She is associate faculty who started a local tutoring program, which generated a single, local coverage event. I agree that people arguing against NPROF is disingenous. Can you add something that is about her scientific notability and not the tutoring program? Mausfield (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Those are both publications by Torstar, they basically use the same people inhouse for their various "publications", I'd not consider them to be independent of one-another. If that's the best there is, we don't have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Or to look at it another way, why is this person much different than the others that established the ones in Chicago that have been running for over 30 years now? Show us coverage that explains that, and we can revisit. I've not seen any. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Oaktree b Can I clarity please? You don't seem to be saying that the CT and WRR articles aren't SIG COV in reliable sources, but that the reliable sources aren't independent? Is that correct? Mme Maigret (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
They're both owned by the same publisher, so I'd consider them one source, together. Sigcov is iffy, but we're still a long way from having enough to show notability. It's basically a local news story, reported in two local papers owned by the same company, Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Oaktree b The Record article contains says "Both the Cambridge Times and the Record are owned and published by Metroland Media Group but keep separate newsrooms and operations". Mme Maigret (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss this at length, I've explained why this isn't notable regardless of the sourcing. Nothing further from me, thanks. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
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}}.
Comment: This article was created on 6 October and PROD'd only 11 days later on 17 October when it could have been draftied. At the time, it contained 1 SIG COV source. I rescued the article, adding two more sources, including a second SIG COV source, and removed the PROD. Within hours, the article was AfD'd. The nominator Ldm1954, didn't appear to have considered the possibility of WP:GNG, and appears to have only sighted the short preview of the first source. There is also a suggestion by Oaktree b (talk) that the two sources – written 18 months apart by two different newspapers – should count as one publication although they also point to the articles being written in local papers. This AfD appears to be headed for delete, however, I think if anything it should be draftified. Mme Maigret (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – The nomination appears to rely heavily on research citation metrics, which may not fully reflect the contributions of a teaching-stream professor whose academic work emphasizes educational innovation and leadership.
Lee has received multiple teaching distinctions, including the University of Waterloo's 2024 Distinguished Teacher Award and inaugural 2026 Accessible Teaching Award. Her contributions also include original biophysics research, with novel experimental protocols and a proposed mechanism for daptomycin inhibition documented in her 2017 doctoral dissertation.
Her founding of Tutoring Beyond Borders received coverage in three separately authored regional newspaper articles (Waterloo Region Record, 2011; Cambridge Times, 2012; and Kitchener Post, 2012), alongside a specific 2019 Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance profile.
While individual awards and publications do not automatically establish notability, the combination of independent coverage, documented educational influence, and scholarly contributions warrants consideration under WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose deleting because it mostly relies on primary sources published on the subject's website (many being user-generated, as it is a wiki). Most other sources mostly cover Conservapedia and briefly mention it as a reaction to the former. The remaining ones have to do with pseudoscience/politics in general and only mention it as a website that documents these topics. I tried to find coverage with Google by clicking on the News tab, but I didn't find anything reliable, most articles being unrelated (and just having comments or sentences containing a short reference or link to the website) and very old. See WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:PRIMARY. Koubaki (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Question. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you @Koubaki, is your primary argument for deletion that the current page relies excessively on primary sources, or that the subject does not meet WP:GNG? Digitalfolklorist 19:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The latter. Koubaki (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
delete fails WP:GNG, not to say the article is heavy on WP:SYNTH, I guess, to boost the importance of the subject. 20:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs)
Comment: while this has survived all prior nominations (dating to 2010) to date, the last nomination (the third, from 2019) was with "no consensus", in contrast to the "keep"s in 2010 (which also closed with a pointer to the talk page for any discussion of potential mergers or redirects, which were not really part of AfD's scope at all back then in sharp contrast to today) and 2016. Even that was a hint of our tightening inclusion standards, which certainly haven't gone back the other direction in the past seven years. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki per WP:B&R, WP:TARGET. Looking through the references I only see mentions and not a single independent source focused soley on RationalWiki. This deficiency hasn't changed since the last AfD in 2019. 5Q5|✉ 11:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Significant reference work well worth keeping. PatGallacher (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you please cite any sources that don't have the problems I mentioned above? Koubaki (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Has just enough significant media coverage and is an important enough resource to online discussions that I think it's a valuable enough page to keep around. FunnyComedianGuy (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@FunnyComedianGuy As I said before, most are simple sentences, not significant coverage.
Redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki per nom. Independent significant coverage is weak to nonexistent, only ever covered in the greater context of other subjects (namely Conservapedia). DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. RationalWiki does have significance (contrary to WP:GNG, above), and has been borne out by 1) a history of citations and mentions from various sources, including academic ones, and 2) What was regarded by some as a set of SLAPP lawsuits by multiple people associated with the modern-day racialist movement. The result of the out-of-court settlement of these lawsuits was a widespread censorship of RationalWiki pages that went far beyond those pages pertaining to the litigants. I will attempt to fill in details and citations for point 2 in the next few days on the main page for RationalWiki. ~2026-57610-28 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
1. @~2026-57610-28 Most, if not all, of these are links or simple references, as far as I can see they are not in-depth coverage. Some are tweets or forum posts, which are not reliable sources.
2. Lawsuits don't make a subject notable.
I'm waiting for your second point. Koubaki (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I believe the 2023 paper (reference #18 at time of writing) amounts to significant, independent, and reliable coverage. When considering the other sources that mention RationalWiki in the context of Conservapedia, remember that [s]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It's close, but on the whole I feel that GNG is met. mdm.bla 02:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mdm.Bla It's only used to describe its content once in the article, it even has a clarification needed tag. It's not used for anything else. The study itself only chooses it because it's the opposite of (and a reaction to) Conservapedia, and Conservapedia (and its criticisms of Wikipedia) is the main thing that the article is studying. Koubaki (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Why would that matter at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The Krebs et al. study only compares RationalWiki's user-generated content with other wikis. It is not significant coverage, as it does not address RationalWiki directly and in detail. It is simply used as a specimen and as the ideological opposite of Conservapedia. Koubaki (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Why would that not be significant coverage? WP:SIGCOV. It is plainly sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. This does not. Again, it only uses it as a data source for the study. Do you have any other sources that you believe are WP:SIGCOV and don't have the other issues that I and several others stated (eg. WP:PRIMARY)? Koubaki (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It does address the subject directly and in detail, for hundreds of words. No, the study discusses the website, and analyzes the website. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It only uses it as a data point in the study, and the only other time it references it is when it provides the necessary context for it (a description), to use it as a data point. It does not discuss it or analyze it outside of this. Koubaki (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
...are we reading the same paper? I don't know how you'd get that at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment If someone here is willing and able to unprotect the RationalWiki page for anonymous edits, I can give the details on the lawsuits there, otherwise I can put it on the talk page. Three of the nine people who sued RationalWiki at around the same time for defamation have Wikipedia pages: Jan te Nijenhuis, Noah Carl, Razib Khan, so I think that adds to notability. About 60 people and entities who were not party to the lawsuits nonetheless had their RationalWiki pages removed as part of the out-of-court settlement. Several of these pages also have Wikipedia pages (e.g., Charles Murray, Richard Hanania, The Unz Review, International Society for Intelligence Research, and Quilette). Thus, the terms of the settlement, censoring non-litigant pages, is evidence that this was an orchestrated censorship campaign by the far-right racialist movement, which I believe also adds notability. ~2026-57610-28 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
As I said, lawsuits don't make a subject notable, even if the plaintiffs are notable. See WP:INHERIT. Koubaki (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note that @~2026-57610-28 appears to be a single-purpose account as they have never edited Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) prior to this discussion. Koubaki (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-57610-28 As noted earlier, this is a brand-new temporary account with no prior editing history. The comments show very detailed knowledge of RationalWiki's 2025 lawsuits and settlement terms. Per WP:COI, if you have any affiliation with RationalWiki or the RationalMedia Foundation, please disclose it. Koubaki (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep multiple sources with sigcov per mdm.bla and so GNG is met. That the article is not ideal is not a reason for deletion; there's worthwhile material here, it isn't a stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
1. Please provide some examples of sources that are sigcov.
2. Most sources are what I said, which is primary and short references. Almost none are sigcov. Again, see point 1. Koubaki (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, nobody in this discussion said that the article isn't "ideal".
Academic article that has SIGCOV discussing RationalWiki.
Academic article that has WP:SIGCOV of RationalWiki.
Academic article in the journal Linguagem em (Dis)curso that has WP:SIGCOV of RationalWiki.
A several hundred word article in the magazine Information Today (full cite "The Wacky Wiki World" O'Leary, Mick. Information Today; Medford Vol. 27, Iss. 10, (Nov 2010): 34,40.)
News article from The Register that has several paragraphs of sigcov on RationalWiki.
Plainly passes WP:GNG. Your argument above that discussions of it that compare it wouldn't count is not based in notability guidelines or policy. And "ideal", well, your argument in your nom rests on the quality of the current article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
[2] I've responded to your comment about this source
[3] basically has the same issues
[4] I couldn't access this one, I had to use archive.org, seems to be in Portuguese and have the same issues as [2], every sentence that had the word RationalWiki was right next to Conservapedia
[Information Today] Could you give a link?
[5] That's definitely not sigcov, it's a mention on an article about Conservapedia Koubaki (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Change position to redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki I agree with several other editors in this discussion that the article should be redirected instead of simply deleted. I'm changing my position as the nominator.
2. As I said that there is no issue with the source.
3. Same thing as I said above.
4. Non English sources are just as reliable, see WP:NONENGLISH.
Information Today, it is on ProQuest.
5. WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There are several paragraphs about rationalwiki, that it is in an article named after something else is not relevant. Several hundred words is sigcov, see WP:100WORDS for one benchmark. By this logic Conservapedia itself is not notable because all of the sources discuss it in relation to Wikipedia.
A redirect is worse than a deletion, it is an unrelated website. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I never said that because it's non-English it's less reliable, I didn't want to imply that. Koubaki (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Well then your objection is that the discussion of it is next to something else, which, per WP:SIGCOV, is not a concern. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Not really, it is basically the same reason as [2] and [3], which is that it does not address the topic directly and in detail. Koubaki (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
How is 300 words about something not "directly and in detail"? What do you think "direct" and "detail" mean? SIGCOV already specifies it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like the Information Today article has the same problem as [5].
About the redirect, several editors agreed with me, and I actually originally wanted to propose a redirect, but when I proposed it I propose a deletion, so now I think that's a better and more logical stance, as most if not all secondary coverage has to do with Conservapedia. Koubaki (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
IMO, Conservapedia#RationalWiki is a poor redirect target because of potential WP:NPOV issues. I can understand why a redirect would be proposed, but my opinion on the sources, namely that they're just sufficient for a standalone article, remains the same. mdm.bla 22:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
...what? You voted delete, but then other editors agreed with you by arguing for a redirect, so since you were correct to... change your vote to redirect?
There is a several hundred word article about Rationalwiki. By this logic why not delete the Conservapedia article and merge it to Wikipedia? All the sources about Conservapedia are discussing it in reference to Wikipedia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
No, there are dozens of sources that discuss and analyze Conservapedia as an independent website, directly and in detail. By contrast, RationalWiki is either treated as a footnote or as a data point, always as a reaction to or opposite of Conservapedia. This is definitely not the same as Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Koubaki (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Just want to point out that WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT aka WP:B&R only removes the article from public view and is not deletion. The talk page and edit history remain accessible and the article could be reinstated in the future once SIGCOV issues are addressed with better sourcing and not likely to result in another AfD. 5Q5|✉ 12:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree, that's what should happen. Koubaki (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
This should not be redirected to an opposite topic because they happened to be mentioned in the same article. If the issue is notability it should simply be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
By contrast, RationalWiki is either treated as a footnote or as a data point, always as a reaction to or opposite of Conservapedia ... no? All the sources I linked discuss RationalWiki for multiple paragraphs. The context isn't even conservapedia, it's more "wikis", as in Wikipedia too. If the issue is "reaction to or opposite of" then as I said Conservapedia also has this issue. Looking at the sources for Conservapedia, all of them are treating it as a "reaction to or opposite of" Wikipedia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - WP:GEOLAND creates only a presumption of notability. Here the presumption is questionable - there is a location, that location is inhabited, but is that location really "Chak 87 EB"? Is it a "village"? If it is, then where is literally any reliable, non-mirror source at all to confirm this? Searching Google you will not see it - you see references to people using it as a postal address, but post-codes are not notable under WP:GEOLAND.
It is not far from the city of Qaboola. How do we know it is not basically just part of/administered from there?
The presumption under WP:GEOLAND is rebutted by the suspicion that this is not actually more than a postal-entity.
I'm sure some people will want to redirect to Qaboola. My issues with this is this is simply a numbered Chak (apparently this translates as "field") and it therefore makes no sense to redirect "field no. 87/EB" to a city as it is not a likely search-term. Additionally, redirects are often lazily recreated and deletion will prevent this.
However, in any case this should not be kept. FOARP (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
As weird as this is, there are a series of places named Chak (number) EB in this area, as evidenced by Chak_(village). It's easily verifiable as a populated place on Google Maps with a number of identifiable schools, shops, mosques. Youtube video of the village as well. However I can't find an actual acceptable Wikipedia source, so we're in Schrödinger's village land - we know it's a village, but don't have anything reliable to say about it. SportingFlyerT·C 20:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
There's nothing that says this is simply a postal-area. A lot of stuff online is algorithmically produced. FOARP (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The village had 4,892 residents according to the 2017 census, ("CHAK NO 087/E-B", 0000244, p.40) Kelob2678 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
This does not substantiate it being a village, but instead just a census-taking unit (which are excluded from GEOLAND). Notably it lists both "CHAK NO 087/E-B PC" with a population of 6,620 and "CHAK NO 087/E-B" with a population of 4,892. There is also "CHAK 087/D" (which is part of "CHAK NO 085/D PC" apparently). Which is the subject article even about? FOARP (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This source says, Tehsils are revenue collection units which are further split up into Patwar Circles (patwar is an area under a patwari, the lowest revenue official). Each Patwar Circle (PC) encompasses 1-6 villages depending on the size of the landholding. This article is about 87EB. Chak 87D is another village. That the place is a village is backed by the title of the column, NAME OF MAUZA / DEH / VILLAGE / SETTLMENT. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't call it a village but instead uses a catch-all ("MAUZA / DEH / VILLAGE / SETTLMENT").
We should have learned from the whole Iranian Abadi issue that just because something is in a class that includes villages, doesn't mean that it is a village itself.
We should think long and hard before opening the door to mass-creation of thousands of articles about entities with no existence in reliable sources beyond listing in a table.
Finally: the details provided here (e.g., the population, which is listed as approximately 15k in the article) don't match those of the article, so are we talking about the same place? FOARP (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a rare instance where I'm convinced a place is notable just by looking at it on a map - it's a clear settlement, 500m square, in the middle of many other settlements 500m square on each side, with schools and a cemetery. We're not arguing over some road junction in West Virginia. At the same time, there is very little information on the internet about it, so I'm just noting this in the event this is deleted, someone can look at the AfD and feel free to re-create it if someone brings information to the table. SportingFlyerT·C 09:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
My concern here is sourcing. If we're keeping it based on a single-line listing in a census-table, we really need to understand that may not indicate it actually exists as a town (or if there is a town, it isn't actually known by this name).
Let's look at some of the other listings in this table:
"In contemporary Pakistan, a mouza is defined as "a territorial unit with a separate name, definite boundaries, and area precisely measured and divided into plots/khasras/survey numbers."[3] Each mouza has a cadastral map maintained in the land revenue record and, except in Sindh, each one has a Hadabast Number.[3] A mouza may be either a compact or a scattered unit, and there may be one or more settlements (a.k.a. abadis, bastis, dhoks, goths, tola, turf, hundi etc.) in the mouza's territory.[3] A mouza may also be unpopulated.[3]"
Which is to say that a Mauza is not necessarily a "legally recognised populated place" or a "village", but instead a land-revenue/cadastral unit. FOARP (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This source says, two motorcycles collided with each other near Jamia Islamia village. MIR KHAN MAHMUNKA has a population of roughly 50, so it is not surprising that it is not that large on Google Maps (assuming you identified coordinates correctly). Kelob2678 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Chak 087 in the census is listed as a part of Arif Wala Tehsil. The place in the article is also said to be 10 km away from Arif Wala. Mauza/Deh is a group of villages, in our case, I assume "CHAK NO 087/E-B PC" is Mauza/Deh and "CHAK NO 087/E-B" is a village/settlement. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
"Mauza" is not a "group of villages". In Pakistan it is a tax-revenue/cadastral unit. Mauza don't even have to be populated. Since all of these units potentially has a "hadabast number", all of them could be Mauza. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That article also says, In Bangladesh, Pakistan and parts of India, a mouza or mauza (also mouja) is a type of administrative district, corresponding to a specific land area within which there may be one or more settlements ... The head of a mauza is styled as Mustajir, Pradhan or Mulraiyat, equivalent to Lord of the Manor in the manorial system ... Today it has become mostly synonymous with the gram or village. Regarding Pakistan specifically
Mouza / Deh: It is a territorial unit with a separate name, definite boundaries, and area precisely measured and divided into plots / khasras / survey numbers. Each mouza is a revenue estate and has a cadastral map maintained in the land revenue record with a Hadbast Number except Sindh Province. Mouza, Deh, Village, Killi and Chak are the names commonly used for it. The term mouza / deh is widely used in the settled areas while the term village and or killi are used in the unsettled areas. There may be one or more settlements, abadies, basties, dhokes, goths, etc. in the territory of a mouza / deh. The mouzas / dehs may also have scattered inhabitation while there may be some mouzas without population as well.
So it is mostly synonymous with "village", villages obviously also can be unpopulated. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This is not synonymous with "village" - it merely says that mouza can include villages, but that the two are not synonymous.
You are making the exact same mistake Carlossuarez46 made with Abadi, which has led to a clean-up that has now been ongoing for more than 5 years and required the deletion of more than 20,000 articles. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Mouza, Deh, Village, Killi and Chak are the names commonly used for it means that "it" has different names, such as "Mouza", "Deh", "Village", "Killi", and "Chak". I guess this is mostly because locals in Pakistan use various names for what in the West is known as "village". Kelob2678 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Common speech and official usage are two entirely different things. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
DeleteDraftify as a reasonable alternative until sufficient sourcing is located –dlthewave☎ 16:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC) - SportingFlyer and FOARP both raise excellent points: This is obviously a Chak (village), a type of village that was established when the area was first irrigated and named with a formula based its water source. However we don't really have any useful information beyond that — Shrödinger's village indeed.
Sometimes there is a topic that we should probably have an article about, but the current state of available sourcing makes it impossible to do so. The only source that was ever added to the article was Famous Fix, which was removed as unreliable and only said "Chak 87 EB is a chak (village) in Pakpattan District, Punjab, Pakistan. It is located four kilometers northwest of Qaboola and roughly ten kilometers south of Arifwala. The village consists of Muhajirs." Population and caste information was added with zero sourcing and seems to contradict the several different population figures brought forth in this discussion, which brings me to my next point: We don't actually know whether the population counts correspond to the obvious large village/small town visible in the satellite view, a portion of it, or some census district in the surrounding area. If we do not have enough information to write a factual bare-minimum stub, we probably should not have an article at all. –dlthewave☎ 15:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
There is definitely something here. SportingFlyerT·C 15:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
There's no doubt that there's something there, but my concern is that we don't have enough verifiable information to write a factual article about it. –dlthewave☎ 02:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete while there is coverage in reliable sources, its all related to the election campaigns. In addition to WP:NPOL this also relates to WP:BLP1E as she is the definition of a low-profile person, shown by how heavily the more recent reference rely on WP:SPS and social media, no WP:LASTING effects. Orange sticker (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
There is national-level coverage for both her 2015 and 2019 run, so BLP1E does not apply.
Lasting is a reference to the notability of events, not people.
Keep as nothing has changed since the second time this page was nominated for deletion. Lack of significant coverage in sources seems provably untrue given the page has 23 items in its reference list. The Voivodeship King (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
@The Voivodeship King: the 23 references currently includes 4 Twitter posts, a blog, 3 sources that just give election results, 2 sources that state who was nominated for election, one source that states the Conservatives won (not sure if it mentions her because the source is dead), one source that states she was mentioned in a book written by the wife of her former electoral opponent, some routine coverage, etc. Sahaib (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. In the first nomination for this article's deletion, @Missvain listed 16 reliable sources covering Claire Wright. Arguments that this was routine coverage do not stand up to scrunity, as other candidates have nowhere near as much coverage. Your first and second arguments don't discredit general notability guidelines and, while we disagree on your third argument, she is the subject of what I consider significant coverage. The Voivodeship King (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Hello dears, as she is still an active politician I'd keep this article. I feel this is also in bad taste as the person nominating this article for deletion is using WP:POV by calling her - "Unsuccessful", didn't realize users here have the power to judge peoples successes in life and profession;) PinkFalafel (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
You are in no position to state or declare or determine if someone is successful or not, that is you own personal opinion, which has nothing to do here in Wikipedia. More so, you have no sources to back your WP:POV of her being - "Unsuccessful". She is or was a politician, it starts and end there. PinkFalafel (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@PinkFalafel: you need to read WP:AGF. You’re making something out of nothing. Sahaib (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
But Dear, there is no Good Faith, when a user declares his personal opinion on a politician. You should address the one calling her - Unsuccessful, not me. PinkFalafel (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I don't see notability, would not pass POL, the county councillor is not notable for our purposes. Sourcing is simply election results, discussing their positions on various issues. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
That's not the case with the sourcing. I direct you to the first time this article was discussed for deletion which showed 16 articles that were not just collated election results. The Voivodeship King (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
But this person isn't notable, being written about and losing in an election, is simply news reporting. It doesn't show lasting notability. People want to know who's doing/saying what before an election, that's what news is for. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:LASTING refers to events, not people. I'm not arguing that Wright is notable by the criteria for politicians, I'm arguing that Wright is notable by the general guidelines due to the amount of media written about her. Your last argument is that it's just coverage people want before an election, but almost no other independent candidates get such treatment frmo national newspapers. The many newspapers are treating her as notable and Wikipedia should acknowledge that. The Voivodeship King (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep normally I would agree with the nominator's rationale; however, the subject has contested multiple national elections, from which there is a range of coverage from national publications, as well as a large amount of regional reporting. This is not comparable to the other AfD examples cited where it's only linked to one event and there's a less clear individual impact or notability. GNG appears to be satisfied in this case (and to an extent arguably WP:NPOL given that local politicians can meet this with a certain level of coverage too). Greenleader(2) (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Per the discussion in the 2022 AfD, those sources do not meet GNG. Also per Oaktree b. Not a WP:NPOL pass nor a GNG one on this sourcing. Reporting of election results is primary and not independent of the candidate since they chose to stand and this is what they do in the electoral process, and if we took results and candidate positions as anything else, all candidates would be notable. They are not. This one isn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. New Statesman. Telegraph. i News - these are not reporting of election results. They are analysis of the upcoming election by independent journalists. All national coverage taken into account with the more local sources probably get this over the link for notability. ~2026-57442-42 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Primary and not independent, as I said. ("Meet the candidate"). For GNG, source must be independent and secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
But it isn't correct they are not independent sources? Independent means whether the candidate has editorial control or influence over the coverage, doesn't it? There's no evidence of that. "Not independent of the candidate since they chose to stand and this is what they do in the electoral process." can't be right? Otherwise no coverage of a politician would ever be independent. ~2026-57442-42 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This is where we need to apply some critical source analysis. Let's take the Telegraph article. Approximately half of all the prose about Wright is quotations from Wright. That is, the journalist has clearly spoken to her and is reporting what she says in the interview. Per WP:INTERVIEW, material coming from the subject is not independent of the subject. What of the other half? Well here, we know that the journalist interviewed her but was writing an article covering other candidates, and thus decided to arrange the material as prose. Information written in a journalist's voice is not necessarily information obtained independently of the subject. Here, we have a journalist who is covering a candidate for election. Where was the information going to come from? Certainly from Wright herself. There's also evidence that some of it was taken from her election materials, such as her election leafled (Hopefully that archive link will work. The actual web link is long gone).The source is both primary, and not independent. But consider: If Wright were really notable as a subject in her own right (no pun intended), then there would be coverage about her other than election materials and "meet the candidates" style coverage. There isn't such coverage, on the evidence. This does not meet WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I think she's probably borderline notable. But I'm more concerned about your interpretation of 'independent'. A national journalist choosing to write about her/her election (when they could write about 650 other elections at that time) is independent. The journalist is not being forced to write that article. A candidate giving a press release to a journalist, providing they do not print the copy verbatim, apply original reporting, analysis and fact-check it, would still be independent because the journalist has decided for themselves whether the story merits coverage and what parts they wish to include (trusted sources such as these will have strict fact-checking/sourcing policies) - how else do you think journalists source information? (I am a journalist by profession). Very concerning that is your interpretation and you are an experienced Wikipedia editor. ~2026-57442-42 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The question for notability is what can we write about Wright from this source? Now... what can we write about Wright that did not come straight from Wright in her election campaign? Pretty much just the betting odds. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Your interpretation of independence is wrong. I'm convinced of it. How do you think we know Andy Burnham's date of birth? Of course, it was a primary source once, but has since passed through independent journalists who will have double-sourced, fact-checked etc. Please look at Andy Burnham's Wikipedia page. Apply your test of independence to that and see what you'd be left with. ~2026-57442-42 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Burnham's birth date does not indicate his notability. What comes from the horse's mouth is not independent of the horse. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
If a journalist reports that the horse spoke and provides original analysis about what it said and how it said it, yes it is. ~2026-57442-42 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
But that is not what happened here. If Wright were notable, there'd be something from after she failed to get elected. As it is, this is, at best, a WP:BLP1E, but not - not even any sourcing for that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Being born, isn't notable. They need another reason to have an article... They aren't notable because a reliable source confirmed their date of birth. What did they do after being born, that's the question. Running for elections and losing, is not notable here. Running for elections and winning at the provincial/state level or higher is. This person hasn't done that. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
You're both missing the point - which is that notability isn't being argued over, it's Sirfurboy's misinterpretation of 'independence' that has irked. AngelosCharisteas (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are the IP editor you may want to claim the edits. No, you have missed the point. Wright is not notable. She stood for election, didn't get elected and although some people told you, at the time, that she was standing for election, and told you what her manifesto was, no one has mentioned her since. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi - I am the IP editor. Not sure how I claim edits, but will look it up. She may not be notable, but the coverage in the Telegraph, New Statesman and The I Paper are all independent. AngelosCharisteas (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Just saying that is fine. Welcome once again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG. Multiple runs, so not 1E. Independence usually doesn't require intellectual independence. We only need that the sources themselves are not affiliated with the subject. Here they are mainstream newspapers. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The Forbes items are bylined "YEC Women" (WP:FORBESCON) and the Entrepreneur, CNN and HuffPost citations are her own columns. The WSJ and Publishers Weekly entries are bestseller chart listings rather than reviews, so neither book has independent critical attention. The BBC, Time, CNBC and Financial Times pieces just quote her as a body-language commentator instead of covering her. LogosUnspoken (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment (paid COI, see my user page.) Her new book Conversation debuted at No. 5 on the New York Times Advice, How-To & Miscellaneous list dated October 25, 2026: https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2026/10/25/advice-how-to-and-miscellaneous/ The nomination mostly went off old sources or ones she wrote. The best recent independent ones:
The past year also has coverage in Spain and Luxembourg (La Vanguardia, El Confidencial, L'essentiel). I've put a few sourced additions in an edit request on the article's talk page. Scott at Science of People (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, subject of AfD has received significant coverage in this article in Austin Monthly and this article from WDET, coupled with the sources provided by the COI user above the subject appears to meet WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 15:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, there are many sources with significant coverage about the institution: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Other than The Telegraph, there are also , , and . Babin Mew (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep — A large chunk of the above linked sources don't appear to be independent. But from what's available overall, it seems to be a borderline pass. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 03:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To assess source independence. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 15:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Former parliamentary candidate who stood down before even appearing on the ballot paper and local councillor. Full of "sources" but completely lacking even a single source which meet the criteria at WP:BASIC as being "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Concerns were raised on the talkpage when this was created 13 years ago but due to our looser standards of inclusion at the time no AfD occured. AusLondonder (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Does the position in the local/municipal government confer notability? I'm not familiar with British local governments. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
No, per WP:NPOL only national and state/province-wide public office holders and legislators are presumed notable. The subject holds office at local council level. AusLondonder (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, subject has not received significant coverage, as mentioned above councillors don't automatically get pages. Sahaib (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I don't see notability; the various positions are office jobs that don't meet POL. The naval career is not notable, the medal given is not a notable award. Running for office is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per failing GNG. The award is non-notable so it doesn't satisfy WP:ANYBIO#1 too. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency. It appears that the subject did stand for election in 2024 in Luton South and South Bedfordshire, so a redirect is appropriate (although I note that the way UK election pages are organized, a reader may gain more context about the subject if it were redirected to the constituency, where editors have added some information about other elections, while the proposed redirect target is just a page of results. A redirect should provide a reader some context about the subject). --Enos733 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Agreed with Enos733 above as the redirect target that I suggested doesn't have a lot about the particular election, where as the section about elections for the constituency has much more.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per others here as deletion is overkill when there's an ATD. Paradoxical to the trigger finger of half the participants here, redirects are cheap.
On the other hand, a redirect to one particular list provides zero information for readers and prevents them finding all the places the subject is mentioned on Wikipedia through the search engine. We have a search engine for a reason. AusLondonder (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Then, dutifully, a merge to relevant locations. If we have the context and reasonably have a parent article we can direct people to, we can and should reasonably do both. I can’t really see where any notion that deletion is the natural response derives from.
Why would we preserve the history for a non-notable subject? That's not suggested anywhere at ATD. AusLondonder (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I relied here on WP:RHARMFUL, The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are: a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;Kelob2678 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There's a pretty clear consensus that the subject isn't notable, but opinions are split on whether deletion or redirection is preferable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Non-notable film. Online sources are minimal; movie databases mostly and mentions in gossip websites. Sources in the article are mentions in encyclopedias. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete or a redirect to its director Sirlink2222 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NIC "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." This is the first film of Luis Miguel in the lead role and the soundtrack of the film was his first gold record, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
You mean WP:NFIC. The criteria says "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." Luis Miguel's career is not in film making but in music, so the film is not a major part of his career. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The soundtrack of the film won his first gold record so is a major part of his career, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment There are multiple offline sources cited. Well, newspapers that may have online access, but don't have URLs listed. Can someone check to see the level of coverage in those articles? Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 16:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Offline sources:
The State of the Arts: Living With Culture in Toronto: "While music is the focus of the board, its context extends far beyond it. Weekly games of Manhunt - a cross between hide-and-seek and tag played in urban areas like Yorkville, the business district and High Park - are coordinated on Stille Post, and because of word of mouth and post-game write-ups, users in other cities have started their own games. The popularity of the game has grown to the point where Manhunt is now played across Canada and in New York and Europe. Users also post about kickball, dinner parties and even soapbox-racing."
National Post: Image captioned "Public-space activist Ian Smalley playing manhunt in High Park"
Toronto Sun: unable to find a match; seems like the Sun published on weekdays during this time, and 2006-03-26 was a Sunday.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Despite the sources above, this game is not notable. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The best sources I could find were probably a Scholastic Blog and 2005 mention in the Reading, PA Eagle. Seems to have been a 2000's fad in Canada that petered out without generating enouch coverage to achieve notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Regional, but not strictly Canadian. Known throughout New York State.
Encyclopedia of Play in Today′s Society p. 287 (2009): "American children of upper elementary school and middle school age have played various versions of the Hide and seek variant Manhunt, which involves careful preparation. Teams of hiders and seekers are prominent in Manhunt, but not all versions of the game emphasize teamwork. Depending on the terrain in which young people hide, Manhunt can be a difficult or even dangerous game. Common sites for this game include backyards and neighborhood streems, but children who want to challenge themselves further may play Manhunt in abandoned buildings and allegedly haunted locales. Players of the more dangerous versions of this game generally do not divulge their plans to parents and teachers."
"Children have fun night out", The Journal News Sun, September 17, 2006 Page 3: "It's like hide-and-go-seek and tag in the dark."
Keep There’s a variation of this, I think in the UK, that’s taken off recently called “zombie”. Would contribute to notability unless were taking the genuinely lame approach of restricting notability to the exact word in question.
Merge to Tag (game)#Manhunt, as they almost completely overlap. This target is better, because it already lists the variant, along with many others. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Tag (game)#Manhunt, not enough sources to justify a separate existence and the Tag section already has a see also to hide and go seek. Doesnt really seem to need much more beyond that. Moritoriko (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist given the flurry of different opinions that came out on this last one. Clarification from prior editors on their opinions of new proposals such as merging to Tag (game)#Manhunt would also be appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Tag (game)#Manhunt with only 55 words of prose and what seems to me like not much room for expansion, this seems like a textbook WP:SHORTTEXT case. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Tag (game)#Manhunt. The offline sources (above) do not meaningfully contribute to notability. Wrackingtalk! 18:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
User:Hduensixojnrwjzz proposes merging to Flamingo Revolution because "It seems like the main flamingo Revolution page essentially covers all of the stuff written here, this page isnt frequently updated so I’d suggest to merge to the main page." I am just mechanically setting up the discussion and tagging on their behalf. DMacks (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Hey mates! Yeah, the October 2026 section of the Flamingo Revolution article does cover these riots, but I specifically made them short so they could be covered more in this article. Either way, I don’t have a problem with merging this page, but any extra information should be transferred over to the Flamingo Revolution article. PancakeGuy20 (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, the protests are different from the original Flamingo Revolution. JustAnAlbo (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Since it's part of an escalation of a much larger protest, it makes more sense for it to be in one article. Although I'd personally avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL, in the long run it looks like it's gonna be more coherent to understand this as part of the Flamingo Revolution rather than spinning it off into its own article. My only concern about merging the two is how large the main article might become, but the current §October 2026 section is describing it pretty well in my opinion. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 11:26, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree MuhBuhJah (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Simply saying you agree or oppose is not sufficient, so please don't do that. Thanks, StarMississippi 15:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This looks like a bit of original research. Of the single sentence, the only source (which is supposed to be a 222 mile road) refers to a slip road in Axminster. A search for sources just brings back Wikipedia copies and mirrors.
The article has previously had content such as "The South Coast Trunk Road or Folkestone-Honiton Trunk Road as a road designation is not now in use, but road signage with that name was installed following the major expansion in British road building between 1975 and 1983. The reason that it was quietly dropped in the 1990s lay in the many changes in transport policy that have occurred since the designation was first initiated. The Wikipedia entries for the M27 Motorway and the A35 road amplify this sequence of events. Examples are the rerouting of the A35 in Devon between Exeter and Charmouth from the road now named A3052, and the many twists and turns in the intentions of the authorities in building, and then cancelling, motorway spurs near Southampton and elsewhere." ... but that's unreferenced original research (with a side order of puffery and citing Wikipedia) so that's no good either.
The real problem is that there isn't a South Coast Trunk Road. It doesn't exist. You can't drive from Folkestone to Honiton on a single route.
As a bonus, the article's picture is of the A35 running through the New Forest, which is not (and has never been) a Trunk Road! Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete. A trunk road in the UK is a designated route that can be made up of multiple existing roads, and this one does exist - it was originally designated in the Trunk Roads Act 1946 (Folkestone-Honiton). But I'm not convinced that we really need an article about it, since there's not much to say other than what the route is. Dedicated UK roads wiki SABRE has an article already. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I do not think this is original research. I am up against the fact Google Books isn't showing previews of any of the books that come up, but it appears this is a relatively disused modern designation that was used to refer to the road as it got constructed from at least 1947 onwards (earliest mention I can find.) Lots of engineering and government sources from maybe 1945-1980 referring to it and then things sort of disappear as it gets known by its route numbers. There's even a brochure from the opening of the University of Southampton Medical School noting the development of the south coast trunk road system in accessing the school... I haven't done a historical newspaper search which would potentially yield more information about its development. It clearly isn't a modern topic. Whether we have enough to say about it I cannot say. The photo is a content issue if kept, though. I think my stance is delete it if needed, but if someone wants to write a properly sourced article, please have at it. SportingFlyerT·C 00:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 15:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.
Delete. None of the streets have their own pages, the only notability is the people after whom they are named. I am dubious about whether having a street named after them really contributes to their notability. As the nom has said, this is not a directory. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Some ten years back my ambition was indeed to create a separate page for each of the CERN streets. However, at the time the Wikipedia community advised that this should not be done—it was better to have the CERN streets described in a compiled list. I am not sure if I am able to retrieve that discussion, but I can make an effort if you think it is of interest.
Maybe it would be a compromise to embed this list in the CERN page? I would say it is of interest for people outside CERN as it shows whom the Organization deems as notable enough to dedicate a street name to them. Especially when new names are added, it is a symbolic gesture showing support for certain groups of scientists: https://home.cern/new-street-names-at-cern-honour-distinguished-figures/ ). Alpaca95 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
This is of course a possibility. However, I note that Wikipedia has its own category of list of lists of streets: Category:Lists of streets, so I do not really understand the issue brought up by Ldm1954.
I would not delete it as a service to public history: The CERN site sees many visitors today getting curious on who are the people behind the names. The street names are dedicated to key figures in physics. STANDPROFILE (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This is not a normal list of streets you can find in a normal map. Even though the Canton of Geneva has recognized these roads, they do not appear on the official map of Switzerland, where the normal street names are included: https://map.geo.admin.ch This makes the list on Wikipedia particularly valuable. If the article’s status as a standalone entry is called into question, then I am in favor of incorporating the information into the main article about CERN. --Hadi (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Followup nom comment. I'm also specifically opposing a merge to the main article. What's WP:DUE there is a general note about how the streets are named, and is in fact, already there: "Most of the roads on the CERN Meyrin and Prévessin sites are named after famous physicists, such as Niels Bohr, who pushed for CERN's creation. Other notable names are Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, and Wolfgang Pauli." (although this is unsourced, and should really have one). THat much is fine, but a giant listing of all the street names would be WP:UNDUE. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 19:10, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The two policies you are citing here refer to the handling of minority viewpoints. I believe this is not the scope of this discussion. It is not a minority viewpoint that the streets at CERN are named after famous physicists. Alpaca95 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – The article documents a notable aspect of the history and identity of CERN. Unlike an indiscriminate directory, the street names form a curated system commemorating important figures in physics and the development of CERN itself. The topic is well sourced, officially recognized, and provides historical and educational context that would be lost if the information were merely dispersed among other articles. Mauro.mezzetto (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Could an experienced Wikipedian explain why many other lists of streets are allowed here Category:Lists of streets? And what sets this list apart from those others? Thank you --Hadi (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's not always a question of "allowed to exist", so much as that no one's noticed it or cared enough to nominate it for deletion. It's quite likely that such other lists should also be deleted (one of them is in fact up for deletion, which is how I found this one in the first place). –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 17:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Why? As a failed proposal, this carries no weight. But even if you do, it still says, "Such a list, however, should not be comprehensive as to the streets and roads in the jurisdiction, since Wikipedia is not a directory." So I don't know what you're trying to get out of that anyway. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 13:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe that the community could not converge and that is why we still have Category:Lists of streets and the page in the centre of this discussion.
Merge any content with references into the main CERN article, delete the rest. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 15:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galfoy -- little evidence this meets GNG, and the sourcing here is not good. This article cites way too many tweets as well as other unreliable sources. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 18:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The sources are atrocious. AO3 is a fiction WP:UGC site. There's social media posts here being used as sources. The best sources are churnalism. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Harry Potter fandom#Fan fiction where it receives a mention, albeit a passing one. This article definitely doesn't have the sourcing to stand on its own. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 02:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Striking my prior !vote and revising to Redirect Per QuicoleJR's persuasive argument. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, the existing sourcing is abundant . Current article sucks but there appears to be GNG-worthy sourcing, yeah (never knew there were so many fandom based academic journals). PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Harry Potter is perhaps the most over-discussed work of the 20th-21st century margin. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Which for us means its subtopics are more likely to be notable in the Wikipedia sense, and the recommended but not required Google Scholar search should be included for Harry Potter topics as likely yielding results, doesn't it? Daranios (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Sure, but WP:GNG doesn't exclude things that are "overdiscussed", does it? I think sports, modern politics, and movies are over discussed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment There's WP:ARTN, and the nomination mostly refers to the current state of the article. This topic is a bit older than Galfoy, so @Gommeh: could you please comment in a bit more detail why you have evaluated all Google News hits as insufficient in your WP:BEFORE search, and if you have had a look at the Google Scholar hits, which look very promising? Thank you very much! Daranios (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
No amount of sourcing can make something automatically notable. Using the link you provided, I see a link to a source () which does not contribute to notability pet WP:VALNET, a piece by the Daily Mail (, unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL) and another one from Metro.co.uk (, unreliable per WP:METRO). There is another one from Screen Rant (), but that one is also WP:VALNET and as such does not count towards GNG. That doesn't look very promising to me. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 15:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I general I'd say "amount of sourcing" is exactly what notability in the Wikipedia sense is based on, if the sources are ok. So thanks for checking those. What about Glamour, The Digital Fix, Inquiries Journal, and Inverse? Daranios (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Inverse should be fine, but by itself is not enough to satisfy GNG. I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about the others, so I can't comment on them. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 15:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The other issue with the Google Scholar sources is, are the journals reliable or not? I am unfamiliar with a good chunk of them... Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 15:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Still, the fact that there are unreliable journals out there cannot mean that Google Scholar search should be avoided, as the deletion process specifically recommends it. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
That's accurate. Hopefully someone with more experience than me in using those journals can weigh in here. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 15:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the Inverse article? Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 13:35, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
It's this one, it was just the third hit of the slightly modified Google News search I had provided. I misunderstood that you had already checked and approved of it, while I now see that you've only checked the reliability of Inverse itself. Looking at the article, it includes only a little on Drarry. So taking another secondary source instead there is e.g. "All Was Well? A Comparison of Harry Potter Slash Fan Fiction Activity Online in the Years 2013 and 2024" discussing the prevalence of Drarry, a peer-reviewed article in a journal published by Marburg University, and the book Harry Potter que(e)r: Eine Filmsaga im Spannungsfeld von Queer Reading, Slash-Fandom und Fantasyfilmgenre by the same author by an academic publisher, which contains a 9-page chapter on Drarry. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The sources listed above are more than enough for GNG, and there's plenty more on Google Scholar. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect or Merge with Harry Potter fandom#Fan fiction. This is just one particular variation of Harry Potter slash fiction, and not notable in itself.
Keep per the sources identified above. The proposed target provides very little information about the subject. It also shouldn't be merged because it is not that important when discussing fan fiction overall. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: A pairing that's as notable as if not more than Destiel, keep per the sources above. Article can use improvement but should not be deleted. ☞ Rim< Talk | Edits > 00:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or retain as a standalone? Deletion is not on the table Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 14:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose to delete this article because it is essentially a synonym of white hat hackers, but coined by Microsoft and used for their not really notable conference. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect as an alternative to deletion. I agree with nom that this seems very similar, if not the same, as white hat hackers. Looking at the sources, the subject may be notable, but I don't think it needs its own article. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMG. Most of the references are dead links. Insufficient reliable sources exist (WP:SIGCOV) to establish notability. Geoff|Who, me? 13:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Fertiliser Corporation of India: I tagged this for notability in 2011 and added its sole citation 11 years later but that really falls under WP:CORPTRIV. I am not seeing anything of specific note, and the Fertiliser Corporation of India article is far better in explaining the financial context in which FAGMIL was created, so a redirect seems a reasonable option. AllyD (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, I could find only one mention in a small publication and a passing reference to it in an academic paper on a different subject Ar1201u1 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
PROD contested. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sources are either WP:ROUTINE transfer news, nothing of substance other than possibly The Sun (which appears to be a brief puff piece only). GiantSnowman 18:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep as this is significant coverage in a national newspaper here and significant coverage here. Note that Mairiga is a nickname - his full name is Jonathan James Naisa. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
First source is definitely WP:ROUTINE transfer news, second source is slightly better but does not go into detail about this individual. Neither is WP:SIGCOV. GiantSnowman 08:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – I believe the player's achievement in the 2025–2026 NPFL season deserves consideration alongside the available media coverage. Jonathan James Naisa which is the said player's official name (Mairiga is a nickname) finished as the league's leading goalscorer with 14 goals, edging Victor Mbaoma and Godwin Obaje for the Golden Boot under the league's tie-breaking rules. The article was originally published as Jonathan James Naisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosmicomsportsag (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Where is the coverage? GiantSnowman 18:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Coverage is routine. 🄻os🄰 15:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: There are sufficient coverage on Guardian and other notable platforms —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-54122-72 (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The subject does not meet WP:GNG. It might have more coverage in the local press, but in its present state, I think deletion should be considered; both cited sources are unreliable Ar1201u1 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete non-notable subject who doesn't meet WP:NPOLGreenleader(2) (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage. There are tens of thousands of councillors in England and they are very rarely notable. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The cited sources are a passing mention, an army gazette notice and a 2019 Sunday Times article I couldn't trace. My search found only passing mentions. Ell Pollar (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Self-released on the artist's own 150 Music label, with one Jazz Weekly review, a BroadwayWorld release announcement, an AllMusic release page and the JazzTime is a profile of the singer. SOFILUIZA//COMMS 09:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The sourcing appears to rely heavily on funding announcements, partnership announcements, acquisition coverage and company-related business news. These establish nesto's commercial activity and growth, but do not necessarily demonstrate significant independent coverage of the company itself, as required by WP:NCORP. Much of the article also reads as a chronological account of corporate developments rather than an indication of independent notability. ~~~~
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF. it.wiki deleted this biography at discussion twice and salted the title as self-promotional SOFILUIZA//COMMS 08:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. - The9ManTalk 08:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are mostly consist of company profiles, the parent company's annual report, interviews, and branded business coverage. - The9ManTalk 07:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened through Proposed article mergers (PAM). Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical PAM process. I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
I'd like to propose merging this page into Never Say Die: Live. Both articles are regarding releases of the exact same performances recorded at the Ryman from January 5–6, 2000. The original 2000 album contains 14 tracks, while this release expands this to the entire, complete performance.
These aren’t separate recordings, but rather it’s just 2 different releases of the same material in a lower and higher quantity of one another. Keeping 2 articles divides the information about the recording between separate pages and creates an unnecessary duplication between them. The material about this release, including the expanded track listing, DVD, charts, and its release details can instead be incorporated into the existing article about the 2000 release.
Doing this would follow the same way as the Waylon Live from 1976, where the article covers the original album and the expanded edition of the album together. The merge would preserve the distinction between the two issues released while giving the reader one single account of the recording and its publication history. Zacnascarguy 88 fan (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Never Say Die: Live. Both articles cover the same Ryman performances: the 2000 release has 14 tracks and the 2007 release the complete concert. One article can contain the original and expanded editions without loss, so merge per WP:OVERLAP. Onatic (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened through Proposed article mergers (PAM). Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical PAM process. I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
This article is very short, and it does appear that a merger with the parent entity, Keurig Dr Pepper, would be most beneficial. There does not appear to be much notability or scope for its Canadian division to have its own page, unless it needs expanding instead, but I cannot see much information to expand it on, and there would likely be overlap with the parent entity. Icaldonta (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
merge into parent; no independent notability. --Altenmann>talk 22:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: not eligible for soft merging, because of a previous contested prod. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge Subject fails WP:NCORP. Sources in article are a press release, a WP:MEDIUM article (which wouldn't be independent even if it was reliable), a dead link, and an article that doesn't even mention the subject. Looking for additional sources, it's mostly WP:CORPTRIV, with no significant coverage I could find. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: @Vestrian24Bio bro!!! I have tried to model this team after Australia’s domestic side, the "Cricket Australia XI". This team typically functions as a collaborative setup that plays warm-up or practice matches against visiting teams. In addition, it participates in invited competitions. The rest is what you think best, thank you. Mathew D'Marco (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Following participants' suggestions, merge notices were added to Bangladesh A cricket team and Cricket in Bangladesh on 30 October. As such, this discussion may need to be relisted to give those articles' editors time to comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FaviFake (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I would (reluctantly) support redirect for all. But it should be noted that under Project Football's notability guidelines, as they have played in (multiple) international matches, they are notable. A redirect would therefore preserve the current pages so that if, at some point, significant coverage can be satisfied, they can be updated and the redirect removed. It's a shame this always happens to Luxembourgish footballers though. Phil 08:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I added content to Carlos Ferreira's article. As for the rest, I did a quick search into all of them, and my current consensus from it is redirect Jean-Pierre Barboni, Marcel Christophe, and Robert Mond. (I did find stuff for both Guy Blaise and Paul Koch, but I plan on looking into that later, as it's currently very late for me right now). ShadowBallX (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Now that I've gone through the sources for both players, Keep both Carlos Ferreira and Guy Blaise per WP:HEY (I expanded both since the nomination), and redirect the rest. ShadowBallX (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I have now seen that there have been multiple updates to Carlo's page. Therefore, I would propose instead:
- Keep Carlos Ferreira
- Redirect the other pages listed here, unless similar updates are made to provide more information and references.
Fails WP:NPLACE. Absolutely no evidence that this is a so-called "community". Sourced only to the unreliable WP:GNIS database. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Gorjan Markovski, as I could not find any significant coverage of this person to meet WP:GNG. To be honest, I find it difficult to search for coverage of Macedonian public figures, as most sites do not allow translations when I click on them. In this case, I've searched for "Јован Марковски кошарка site:.mk" on Google. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This article has had issues for as long as I can remember and they have never been fixed for years. It's time to put it to rest once and for all. It's not even an encyclopedia article, just a list of news sites. Does it really meet the criteria for existing? It could also be merged into alternative media, which also needs more citations. Maybe they could muster enough citations if combined and reduced. Or it could be converted into a draft. But I think outright deleting is the most WP:BOLD choice here for an "article" of such poor quality. 1101 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Lists are a thing on Wikipedia. An article being poor quality, or simply stating that it doesn't meet the criteria for existing, is not sufficient reasoning for a deletion nom. I don't have an opinion here. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - This article reads like a list but it should be overhauled with a proper history section. It should look more like an article, not a list. Segaton (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: did some digging, there are two book sources listed in the German language wiki article; couldn't find online access to them unfortunately. A book from 2022 (Klaus Beck, Württembergische Einheitsbahnhöfe, 978-3-96303-386-5) apparently remains unreleased despite being listed in several online stores. If GNG can't be met, merging or redirecting to Royal Württemberg State Railways is also an option. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 02:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
A person who's only claim to notability is being appointed to a government job. The sources are mostly about their appointment to said position with very little to no significant coverage on the subject themselves. Many of the references just go to the landing page of the news outlet, which does seem to indicate utilization of AI in the creation of this article. So far this person seems to fail the criteria of WP:GNG. McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 02:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - An official of a department that also fails WP:N. Zalaraz (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I initially didn't want to !vote on this but I want to inform those who don't understand how Nigerian politics works. This nomination is the same as the nomination of Jerry Uwangue. And what is here is the explanation given by VWF in that discussion. A Commissioner in Nigeria is not just a public service position (a Permanent Secretary, for example, is), it’s a member of the state cabinet of a country operating a federal system of government. You can read State Executive Council (Nigeria) to understand better. There’s an executive council (cabinet) for every state in Nigeria and these state cabinets all have cabinet members which a Commissioner is. So this person clearly passes the notability criteria for politicians. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Per WP:NPOL. As Reading Beans explained, a state Commissioner in Nigeria sits on the state executive council, so this is a cabinet-level office and not a civil-service post like a Permanent Secretary. That puts her in the same position as the Commissioner kept in the Jerry Uwangue AfD. The nomination argues the sources cover her appointment and not her as a person. That matters for GNG, but NPOL is a separate route: holding a statewide office is enough on its own, and the sources only need to verify that she held it. Appointment announcements from independent outlets do that. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Not an elected position. Sub-national appointees are not automatic WP:NPOL passes and this person fails WP:GNG. 🄻os🄰 15:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@LosAEdits, make arguments that you are knowledgeable about. NPOL literally reads “national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province-wide public office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[13] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.” I don’t see any vagueness in that text; it mustn’t be elected. Let me ask, do you elect judges? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 23:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I see your point, but there are so many song pages in Wikipedia that aren’t even as half detailed as this one. Yet there are still live on the website. Nairolf17 (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for a keep. I see someone has added a charting position though, so that's an indicator that more coverage could be out there, especially if it keeps climbing in the chart or enters a chart in a different country. JTtheOG (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to Early Life Crisis because I see no evidence of this song receiving significant coverage as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. JTtheOG (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep due to a lack of policy-based reason for deletion, and coverage that predates the acquisition: Geschichte (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to Xperiment because there is no evidence of this track meeting WP:NSONG. In lieu of significant coverage, the article seems to rely on a handful of sentences from reviews of the album the song appears on. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, not notable, Google search returned only primary sources. Also fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (because the directory entries is only primary sources)Avidpersooo (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
No evidence of this young artist meeting WP:NMUSICBIO. No charting songs/albums, no certifications, no reviews, no major awards, no significant coverage. Most refs are trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Not much reliable sources found on the web. Other language wikis may provide some sources but they are either inaccessible, or not sure if they are reliable. SVcode(Talk) 20:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Spanish language version clearly shows there are enough reliable sources for this to be a stand alone article. La Región even has a category set up for the beach: SportingFlyerT·C 14:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the only coverage of this person is in [], which is a typical high school player profile that doesn't really lend to notability. The only references in the article are merely primary. As such, the subject fails to meet the WP:GNGLet'srun (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I found at least one article covering her professional career in Germany. We don't have good database access there.Jahaza (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
The above article was about when she was released by Potsdam. This one is about when she joined them:Jahaza (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep the German Wikipedia article has a number of other sources and is more complete. Jahaza (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. de.wiki sources seem ROUTINE. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:31, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 17:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Notability tagged for two years. A footballer who played in the weak S League, not picking up any tangible SIGCOV while there, and lower Japanese leagues. Geschichte (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 98 minutes in the Thai 1 League, which makes coverage more unlikely. (And only 430 minutes in the 2 League). Found nothing good searching for his Thai name. Geschichte (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I was not able to find any WP:SPORTSSIGCOV, only squad lists and some domestic match reports. Could have redirected to a list of Gambia international players but none exists. Geschichte (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Having slashed a bunch of PROMO and non-independently-sourced cruft from the article (looks like a fair amount of COI editing was involved), there's barely anything left, and all of the sourcing I can find is pretty clearly non-independent or outright paid for. Happy to withdraw if someone confirms that 2 of these 30 books are notable, but I'm not gonna do a BEFORE on every single one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment (disclosure: I am a paid editor. I am paid by Greatness Inc., Don Yaeger's company, for marketing work. I have not edited the article and I am not voting.) The nomination asks whether two of the books are notable. Here is one independent profile of Yaeger himself and independent reviews of eight co-written books, each crediting Yaeger as co-author. Several reviews are lukewarm; I list them only as evidence of independent coverage.
Profile: Lilly Rockwell, "Don Yaeger: Lightning Rod", Tallahassee Magazine, 20 July 2012 (a long feature covering his career, including the critical parts; it also cites earlier coverage in the South Bend Tribune, 1993, and St. Petersburg Times, 2005)
Keep all These are valid spinout articles. Too much to list in the main articles. Listing all the valid things a company owns, most with their own articles, is valid information. DreamFocus 09:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The problem is not simply that merging these back into the company articles would bog them down (this isn't even a merge proposal anyway, but a bundled traditional deletion discussion), but that their contents are original research and NOTCATALOG contraventions that are prohibited in any article (standalone or otherwise). Any validity of the information does not preempt policy. WCQuidditch☎✎ 19:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep all, are useful pages for research GabrielLupin (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete These pages have always been poorly researched, always have edit wars and vandalism that waste the time of admin and regular editors, and their sourcing is always improper or just an aside in an article that can be proven false. We're not a corporate IP gazetteer, and anyone coming here with an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument is advised to actually read the articles and see the poor and unstandard listings for themselves. Nathannah • 📮 16:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: it's one thing to simply list the subsidiaries of media conglomerates (as we do elsewhere), but framing it as a list of libraries comes pretty close to being a grander-scale version of the likes of a list of all books published by HarperCollins that NOTCATALOG specifically disallows, and are invariably prone to original sesearch. While by itself being susceptible to policy violations (e.g. the aforementioned edit wars) is not a P&G-based reason to delete, every now and again that can demonstrate how the pages' existence themselves aren't exactly P&G-based either. WCQuidditch☎✎ 19:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 02:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, too local, Wikipedia is not a database of each and every election. Geschichte (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Lack of notability and weak sources. Discussion should probably be had as to whether the sources demonstrate notoriety, are accessible, and qualify as reliable secondary sources. It is not clear to me whether these are catalogs that his works appear in or articles written about the artist. LightningScout(Talk) 03:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I deprodded the article based on the list of references from his site. Among them, there is one that is seven pages long, Tucker, Arlene, "Timothy Hutchings, Unsung Video", Umelec Magazine, 2009, pg 32-39, ill.Kelob2678 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 07:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Week keep for now. I'm currently seeing if I can verify some of the references, although the 2001 ArtForum article doesn't seem to exist. Nighfidelity (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm Tim Hutchings! I received an email about the page deletion so here I am. I updated the entry to reflect the game work that makes me relevant nowadays and added some citations.
I think the videography can be deleted–as far as I know only two of those pieces are in museums and they aren't considered important work. I'd delete the out-dated references to print media, too. BUT! I don't know wikipedia rules well enough to delete the stuff myself. ~2026-57656-31 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 02:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to SQL syntax because of substantial WP:OVERLAP with SQL syntax and the various SQL keyword pages. I'm not even sure there's any unique content here worth preserving, so it might be better to just delete. Reasoncraft (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:ROUTINE strip mall that probably needs speedy deletion. The history section skips completely from 1992 to 2023. Alt option: Merge with Bay Terrace, QueensAspifi (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Under G11, promotional content with no educational value. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I do not think it is that promotional, but the sourcing is rather weak. The coverage is either sponsored or too reliant on the people associated with the center. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had closed this as delete, but Epicgenius flagged existence of additional sourcing that hadn't been discussed. Relisting for those to be presented and assessed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see anything here that makes this shopping center meet WP:GNG.
Thanks Star Mississippi, much appreciated.Comment - Any comments on these sources? These NY Times articles (1, 2, 3) and Qns.com seem to provide more-than-passing coverage of this topic. At least two of these are mentioned in the article. –Epicgenius (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The first source is local and short; it is not clear what content originated from Mollen, a representative of the company, and which is from the journalist. The second source is good, I initially saw that it discussed, The new Cord Meyer plan calls and thought that the whole source was about describing its plan, while in reality it contains non-trivial information about its relationship to the Queens community at large. The third source contains too little about the center. The fourth relies on Cord Meyer Development announced plans and also says, Those interested in learning more about the project can go to bayterrace.com/residential/. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
For the first source, just to clarify, local sources can still be fine as long as they meet other aspects of RS. I see your other points, however (I won't be making a formal !vote, these are just some of the sources I dug up on a very brief search). Would these, in your mind, preclude a merge? I don't think the possibility of merging, as mentioned in the nom, has really been discussed given these sources. –Epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
An IP editor claiming to be a band member left a message with respect to this band stating that pretty much all the information we have about it is incorrect. What troubles me is the dearth of reliable sources from which to make such a determination about this one way or the other. BD2412T 01:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Passes #5. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC).
@Innisfree987 and Xxanthippe: Per the !votes below, note that WP:NACADEMIC #5 has been revised and likely no longer includes this case. BD2412T 18:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I think this is a good test case for the newly strengthened WP:PROF#C5, which has been clarified to state that it does not apply to all named professorships, but only to those for which we have evidence of it being given for scholarship at a level equivalent to a distinguished professorship. We have no such evidence here, and what I can see leans the opposite way: his Google Scholar profile looks undistinguished to me (someone this senior in this field should have more citations than that) and despite being elevated to IEEE Senior Member in 2013 (a rank given primarily for seniority, not accomplishment) he appears not to be an IEEE Fellow (which would grant automatic notability, which some other members of his department show off in his department's faculty roster, and which I would expect to see for any IEEE member of the distinguished level of scholarship that we are looking for in #C5). Which is all to say, I don't think the case for #C5 notability is there, and I don't see evidence of any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, per David Eppstein and Ldm1954. Although he holds a chair financed by a gift to his university, his records do not show a level of scholarly achievement above that of the typical full professor, or at the "distinguished professor" level, per note 5b at WP:PROF. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
No substance on the page indicates encyclopedic notability for this subject, whose article has remained a two-line stub for a decade. BD2412T 00:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I added many books with many more book reviews on JSTOR. Easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. This is the sort of WP:BEFORE the nominator should have done after seeing that the article claimed notability through authorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I do appreciate the list of books, but am leery of the fact that everything we know about this subject biographically comes from their own in-house bios. BD2412T 19:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, passes NAUTHOR. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, magnificent WP:HEY expansion performed. Geschichte (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The expanded bibliography lists reviews of Poverty and Problem-Solving, Urban Poverty and Population Growth in APSR, Hispanic American Historical Review, Journal of Latin American Studies and other journals. Several independently reviewed books make this an easy WP:AUTHOR pass. Onatic (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG given the only given source contains none of the information in the article, and there are no other independent sources around this person. End (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Arts. End (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG, have not been able to find other sources; books do not seem to be notable enough to meet WP:AUTHOR (have not found any info other than a single review) Bastobasto (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this has been tagged as an undersourced BLP and a potential NBIO failure since 2012–both very long times to be a substandard BLP. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:Notability guidelines. Most sources rely on gossip sites (i.e. Reality Tea, US Weekly, OK Magazine) Thewealthysocialite (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Entire article violates WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTESSAY. Many paragraphs have citation-needed and clarification-needed. I also found possible WP:SYNTH from the book citations. Probably best to invoke WP:TNT. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Subject is alumna and faculty
Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened through Proposed article mergers (PAM). Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical PAM process. I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.