Neither of the sources seems to actually discuss "Women bead traders in precolonial Lagos". The one example of a woman bead trader given, Wusamoto Shelleh, was active in the 1930s, i.e. long after the period treated in this article. Fram (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
This article about an unconfirmed Indonesian ambassador was suspected of having been LLM-generated, see Diff/1382070027, this log, and this discussion on the AI noticeboard. Even if it was not, the article does not meet our guidelines for notability. None of the references have significant coverage of the subject and they all mention the subject once except one that has two mentions of her name and quotes her twice in statements regarding Indonesian Aerospace. Many times what was referenced did not provide evidence for the words that preceded them. This could be made a redirect to the list of ambassadors of Indonesia where they are mentioned. Aneirinn (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Tagged for paid editing since 2020. Sources are unconvincing for notability. A blog, primary source, another blog, an offline site, and Bella Naija which has been ruled unreliable at WP:RSN. Search shows nothing else except that the site itself (pleasuresmagazine.com.ng) appears to be offline. 🄻os🄰 18:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Promotional article about a magazine but the sources do not show WP:CORPDEPTH. Just non-reliable sources or WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and some routine announcements. 🄻os🄰 18:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Wizkid. Every source provided (many failing WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA) discusses her in connection to Wizkid. 🄻os🄰 18:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Here we go again..... Are you going to ignore these sources?.... Or act like you aint seen And fact that She has also been referenced in notable songs, and an album has even been named after her. Of course, articles about Wizkid’s mother are going to mention Wizkid.... She cleary meets GNG. Afro📢Talk! 18:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
As I said, discussing her in relation to Wizkid just like every other article. She is best discussed on that article as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. 🄻os🄰 18:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
And as I said, Wizkid is a global superstar. It is unrealistic to expect articles about his mother to omit his name. The Punch article provides coverage of her beyond a passing mention, and should be assessed based on the depth of that coverage. This two articles i mentioned above meets WP:SIGCOV. It is like writing about Michael Jackson’s mother and expecting the article to ignore her children. Is that even realistic? Afro📢Talk! 19:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: So, her claim to fame is "unwaivering support" for her son? That's pretty much every mother, since the dawn of time. I see nothing to show this individual is notable, and coverage is only about her offspring. "10 things to know" are more celebrity gossip, nothing we can use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
No sustained coverage; insufficient independent reliable sources with 'HybriCell' as the primary topic. No improvement despite tagging for 14 years. Doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT and no suitable merge target (as an alternative to deletion). Klbrain (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Routine announcements only. No notability shown. 🄻os🄰 17:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Nigeria. 🄻os🄰 17:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Unidentified militant known only by a kunya. Sources are brief, contradictory reports in partisan Yemeni outlets and a passing UN mention, with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Ell Pollar (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The sources listed include reliable outlets like Al Itthiad and most of the other are widely circuclated and established media networks within Yemen. If you can explain to me why you believe any of these sources are unreliable that would be helpful. Keylanweylan (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not arguing that Al-Ittihad is unreliable across the board. Its piece gives him two sentences in a daily war roundup, on the word of unnamed local sources, and the paper is state-owned in a country that is a party to the conflict, so it needs attribution (WP:BIASED). Wide circulation isn't the test in WP:RS. The other outlets also cite unnamed sources or relay social-media posts, and they disagree on whether he died in 2020. For a WP:BLP that isn't enough. Ell Pollar (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
It is reliable but it could be biased. Like any source. Bias-lessness is impossible to reach ever. We just go with the most popular opinion among reliable sources as our guide for what is 'neutral'. So i guess the naming of the poicy is misleading, but you seem to have been misled by it JaneFootball (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, and that's what I meant: bias doesn't make a source unreliable, it means the claim needs attribution. My case for deletion doesn't depend on it. Al-Ittihad gives him two sentences in a daily roundup, and no source covers him in any depth. Ell Pollar (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I also referred several other reliable sources that provide more context on who he is, rather than depending solely on Al-Itthiad. Hence my Aden Al ghad and South24 comments Keylanweylan (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Okay, I've looked again at the Aden al-Ghad articles and the South24 item (which is actually a post on X). Let's look at them together. The August 2025 article is about the killing of the poet Shaddad al-Khawlani and mentions "the munshid known as Mus'ab al-Adani" once, as the singer of Khawlani's poems. The August 2026 article quotes the journalist Abdulrazzaq al-Jamal, who says al-Adani wasn't in AQAP when the STC arrested him, was "closer to a supporter than an operational member", and that most of what was circulating about him is wrong. The South24 item is a one-line post on X quoting an analyst about his release, and I couldn't find a South24 article about him. None of this is significant coverage, and al-Jamal's account contradicts the article's claims that he led ISIS in Aden and ran AQAP's media operations. Ell Pollar (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I want to stress Abdul Razzaq did not claim he was never a member, I had found within the original Tweet that Aden al Ghad had based their article on, he alluded to Adani as being a former member instead of saying he outright was never part of the organization. The type of language used in the Tweet sounds more like he wants to cover for Adani rather than to provide his own real opinion. However, the reason it is sourced is because it provides more context as to the discourses surrounding who he is, proving Adani has a level of ongoing notoriety in Yemen. Keylanweylan (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Also sources such as South24 Center is recognized by ACLED as a real reporting agency Keylanweylan (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Aden al-Ghad additionally is a solidified secondary source that has had press coverage within Yemen Keylanweylan (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The "failing" of WP:GNG that you reference mentions using independent reliable Secondary Sources with significant coverage all of which these sources check. The mere fact that there are multiple mentions of the subject's name across unrelated independent sources over the course of a ten-year time frame is evident that this is a real individual and person. Additionally, primary sources of this individual exist and have been extensively banned or removed by several online platforms due to algorithmic tagging of audio which can be self-tested on sites such as Archive.org, Soundcloud, YouTube and Twitter. Keylanweylan (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Keylanweylan, the issue is depth more than reliability. None of the cited pieces is about him. Each gives one to four sentences, several relay social-media posts, and the Yafa News item is a reprint of Al-Ittihad. They also describe different roles (ISIS official in Aden in 2015, AQAP security official reported killed in 2020, media-wing leader in 2023, chanter released from prison in 2026) that no source connects, so the article joins them itself (WP:SYNTH). That falls short of WP:GNG and of what WP:BLP needs for claims like these. Ell Pollar (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Just because they mention different roles doesn't mean that it's a different person. In most of the recent sources they explicitly mention he was a former member in ISIS and had defected to AQAP around the same timeframe the 2015 source was written. This matches the timeline that is mentioned. The only discrepancy is his alleged death, however this isn't an uncommon phenomenon among jihadists as they have in the past claimed falsely a KIA while after narrowly escaping violent attacks, in this case one that was probably faked or arranged. Cases such as Hamza Bin Laden are reminiscent of this. Keylanweylan (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete – posts on X and partisan local outlets cannot support a biography (WP:V, WP:BASIC). Kukuryza (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
That is simply supplementary information, so I can transfer it to footnotes, however one of those posts comes from South24 which as stated is a recognized organization for news within Yemen, verified by Twitter and with a large social media presence, non-partisan as indicated by ACLED. Since there is no mirror article for that source I believe it is viable to be treated as an article. Keylanweylan (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you also identify to me which of these sources are partisan and why? Keylanweylan (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: if there aren't enough sources to accurately piece together this person's status and occupation, they probably shouldn't have an article. Hsnkn (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
It is very clear and consistent that this individual is a propagandist by being a "chanter"/munshid as what most sources claim. How is that not clear? Keylanweylan (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
If you bothered to read any of the sources provided you would see it says explicitly the majority claim, he is a Singer associated with Al Qaida. I don't need to specify it multiple times if the beginning sentence mentions it. Keylanweylan (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 15:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete completely unsourced and nothing comes up when I search for their singles. Orange sticker (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I've found (and added) a couple of sources from doing a deep dive on google, but not enough for me to comfortably !vote on. Leaning towards keep, but holding off for time being. nilnz 05:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Returning back to this – upgrading to Keep per WP:RSMUSIC sources that have since been added. nilnz 23:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of references sourced to The Guardian, BBC, Drowned in Sound and AllMusic and others. It is also referenced that they had a minor hit on the UK national singles chart (reaching 45) as per criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:45, 28 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 propose mergingC-3 (TV channel) into History of Nickelodeon. C-3 was simply the local, 16-month pre-launch test phase of Nickelodeon on the Columbus QUBE cable system, broadcasting only a single program (Pinwheel). Because its operational lifespan, corporate ownership, and historic background are structurally inseparable from the birth of Nickelodeon, maintaining it as an isolated stub is redundant. Consolidating this data into a dedicated early history section provides a cleaner chronological timeline for readers. All existing references (including the Hendershot text, the QUBE PDF, and original 1978 news clippings) and the pink TV logo will be safely preserved in the destination section. Frappe23J (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to History of Nickelodeon#1977–1979: C-3: though by and large, except for the logo image (and the infobox that probably would not be brought over) there really isn't much in this article that either isn't already there (or elsewhere in the target article)–which in and of itself suggests a separate page is not needed. WCQuidditch☎✎ 19:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete – the operator's own page and a newspaper clipping are not significant coverage (WP:NMEDIA). Kukuryza (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I strongly favor a merge over a flat delete. while independent coverage is narrow, the historical details regarding the pre-launch phase, the specific broadcast hours, and & the peer viewed Hendershot (2004) book citation are highly valuable. merging ensures this unique piece of early cable history and its reliable academic sources are preserved within the main article rather than being lost entirely to a deletion. Frappe23J (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 14:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I'll have to second that because refereces 6-12 aren't strong secondary sources and one of the sources is Linkdin. Russo-winner1234 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Etcetera Ejikeme. The company itself fails WP:NCORP (coverage is routine or founder-focused) but it can be covered as an activity of its founder within his article. 🄻os🄰 17:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Not notable, see coverage - basically routine coverage of corporate affairs, nothing indicative of personal notability beyond "being that CEO of [x] company". 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 15:30, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Coverage of corporate events can also be coverage of the person, and WP:BASIC asks whether reliable, independent sources address the subject directly and in detail. Here they do. The Associated Press report on his appointment at CSX (Josh Funk, 29 September 2025) spends around ten paragraphs on his background, his record at Praxair and Linde, with independent analyst commentary, and the reasons the activist investor backed him. The Jacksonville Daily Record published a staff-written profile of his career the same day. Taken together with the NYT, WSJ and CNBC coverage already cited, about someone who has been chief executive of three major public companies over two decades, that is significant coverage of the subject, not routine announcements. The article is thin, but per WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP that calls for expansion, not deletion. I've added both sources to the article. Serindaly (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
AP piece really is just discussing CSX. The mention of the new CEO is covered insofar as to discuss his potential impact on the company.
Angel brings exceptional credentials from 22 years at GE’s locomotive operations and demonstrated value creation, generating over 200% returns at Linde and Praxair while[...] is not signs of notability for this person as an individual. Analyzing how a new person running the show would have what kind of implications on the shareholders' money bag is exactly what a business analyst ought to do; it's their job.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - easily the best CEO article I've seen here in many months. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The only source in the article that I think could satisfy the WP:general notability guideline is the article from the Jacksonville Daily Record. It goes over Angel's career, education, family, and philanthropy. Although it contains some statements attributed to Angel, I think without it the article has just enough to be considered significant coverage.
The other sources are a primary source and trivial coverage with brief mention of Angel himself. I was also unable to find any additional sigcov on him. Since GNG requires multiple sources, there is currently not enough for a standalone article. If more sources are found that satisfy GNG I could change to keep. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Article created and maintained by multiple SPAs (many of them blocked for spamming) with little significant edit done by other users. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 15:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to relevant parent and save content. Destruction of information needs to be our very last resort and never taken lightly. — VPP (t/c) 16:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Who created or maintained an article isn't a reason to delete it; the question is whether the company meets WP:NCORP, and it clearly does. There is in-depth independent coverage going back years before the IBM deal: John Markoff's piece in The New York Times ("Securing data by scattering the pieces", August 2006) is almost entirely about Cleversafe and its dispersal technology, and The Register published a long analysis of the company's history, funding and customers in March 2014 (Chris Mellor, "How much data must you have before you need Cleversafe?"). Crain's Chicago Business, the Chicago Tribune and Fortune covered it again from 2014 to 2016, most of it already cited in the article. The promotional wording is a real problem, but that is a matter for cleanup, not deletion (WP:ATD-E, WP:NOTCLEANUP). A redirect to IBM Cloud Object Storage would lose the history of a company that was notable well before IBM bought it. Serindaly (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
For ease of verification, since these sources are very imprecisely cited: Nytimes, The Register. The rest of this comment doesn't provide enough bibliographic info to know what sources it is talking about. I'll refrain from making any other comments on the merits because, while I acknowledge Wikipedia rules do say otherwise, I think "company article subject to spam with no interest from the community in maintaining it" should be a reason for deletion by itself, as should "article created by account later blocked for undisclosed paid editing". * Pppery *it has begun... 02:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
And IBM Cloud Object Storage is a redirect here, so discussing a redirect there makes no sense. I really want to delete this, but my reasons for doing so aren't convincing by Wikipedia's standards. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
nn scientist, the only claim for notability is that she worked in the lab of Marie Curie, with no particualr achievements. The only single source is Pigeard-Micault's book in two editions. I searches in the internets for her surname both in native and French spellings and found nothing else. --Altenmann>talk 17:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The history of the article seems to entirely be conjecture. Machine translations of the cited sources do not support the claims made in the article. I am unable to find additional sources that fulfill WP:NCORP. 🄻os🄰 17:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Nigeria. 🄻os🄰 17:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Two of 5 refs withnsame title are fake (Nijeryalı akademisyen, gazeteci ve alimlerden Ayasofya'nın ibadete açılmasına destek" = "Nigerian academics, journalists, and religious scholars have welcomed and supported the decision to reopen Hagia Sophia as a mosque.")
the ref "Nigerian law graduate denied call to bar over hijab" says not a word on the subject
Two remaining refs about Erdogan just cite that Muslim News Nigeria named him ‘2019 Global Muslim Personality of the Year’.
Based on primary sources with no independent sources about the company/publication. Search only reveals coverage of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA-style coverage of promotional awards that this publication gives out. 🄻os🄰 17:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Nigeria. 🄻os🄰 17:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Article about a blog with 5 primary sources. Not much found in a web search, I can't even find the website itself. The blog supposedly launched in 2012 but one of the sources was published in 2009. 🄻os🄰 17:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Nigeria. 🄻os🄰 17:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Article created shortly after the "magazine" was founded in 2015 and has been tagged for notability since 2016. Was unable to find any sources that show WP:CORPDEPTH, mostly WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA-style articles about promotional awards that they give out. 🄻os🄰 17:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep, subject of this AfD has received significant coverage in reliable sources including this in the Boston Herald and this via ProQuest in the Boston Globe, additionally the subject of this AfD has been inducted into the Massachusetts Broadcasters Hall of Fame. While the article needs improvement, that is not a reason for deletion. Alternatively, rather than deletion the article can be redirected to Evening Magazine#Boston.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The dish is not notable. Its just a dried vegetable not even specific to Kashmir. It can be merged into Food or Culture of Kashmir CtrlZultan (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Juju on That Beat (TZ Anthem) because I feel that this is a rare case where the song is notable but the artist is not.
The duo's article redirected to the song until December 2017, when another user undid the redirect. The merge discussion last year (before merging became a part of AFD) stalled out with one person arguging to merge, but the article creator arguing to merge in the other direction instead. My argument for merging to the song is that I found almost no biographical information on the duo, but a little bit more about their only song.
Both members of the duo were minors with no noteworthy musical backgrounds, so it is highly unlikely that I missed any pre-fame coverage. Indeed, their names (both stage and real) turn up no results anywhere prior to the release of "Juju on That Beat" in 2016.
ThisBillboard blurb which is about another song, and only briefly name-checks "Juju" as one of the shortest songs ever to chart. Also not SIGCOV.
Only the AllMusic bio really has any substance, but even then, it mostly talks about the song. The rest of the sources in the article are just verifications of the chart position and certification.
The only other source I could find not already in the article was thisUSA Today blurb reprinted in several newspapers, which mostly talks about the song's performance on streaming and says very little about them.
Literally all we know about them is their real names, approximate age, and city of origin. That's extremely anemic for an article on a musical act.
On Newspapers.com, the hits for either member's name in 2017 are:
This coverage of a Kidz Bop concert, mentioning that the act covered "Juju on That Beat"
This photo caption indicating Zay Hilfigerrr as one performer of many at a concert
This blurb about Zay getting wrongly reported as a missing person
The former two are clearly not SIGCOV, and the third is clearly WP:ROUTINE coverage irrelevant to the duo's notability. They are not mentioned even once on newspapers.com after 2018.
A cookbook which lists "Juju" as a recommended song
The only other three GBooks hits are a compilation of UK singles charts, an almanac, and a book that reprints Wikipedia articles. Clearly, none of this is SIGCOV.
Of the hits on GNews:
A review from Singles Jukebox. As the review is mostly cited to a bunch of randos on Wordpress, Twitter, and Tumblr, I'm inclined to say it's not an RS.
This appears to be an advertisement for a concert appearance. Not SIGCOV.
This blog post is little more than an annotated upload of the music video. Not SIGCOV.
ThisVice article, written yesterday, is reporting on a TikTok reel posted by one of the members. WP:VICE claims no consensus on Vice being an RS, but this appears to be routine celebrity gossip.
After that, GNews only brings up social media accounts, IMDb, and Wikipedia. "Zay Hilfigerrr" and "Zayion McCall" also turned up zero results on JSTOR.
There is absolutely zero mention of their existence between 2018 and the Vice article that was created yesterday. Not even a perfunctory "where are they now" clickbait article. That to me is damning evidence that they fail WP:SUSTAINED or at least WP:BLP. There's just too little information on them, just their song.
To me, it makes more sense to give the song precedence, as it is the more clearly notable entity with multiple international chart peaks and certifications. There's just more to say about it, in the same way a notable album can have a non-notable producer, or a notable film can have a non-notable director. While they are not directly parallel, we have a few cases where a song has an article but its artist does not, such as Ready 'n' Steady. I should also point out that the song's article is extremely short, and the USA Today and AllMusic sources contain info on the song that is not already in its article. If that info were in the duo's article, there'd be too much WP:OVERLAP.
tl;dr: Because there is so little info on the duo, but substantially more about the song, I feel it makes more sense to restore the pre-2017 arrangement of the duo's name redirecting to their song. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 16:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: These are completely separate railway companies that share nothing but a name. The modern company uses a different rail line several miles away from the old company. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
It is the same rail line, the shortline is mentioned in the other's prose Wobs100 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
It is not. The modern shortline uses the ex-Valley Railroad, running northeast from Staunton to near Harrisonburg. The 19th century company used a line that is now the Roanoke District, which runs through Waynesboro and Elkton several miles to the east. I've edited the lead to clarify that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
After looking at multiple maps, I agree Wobs100 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Probably not; this is likely a WP:NOPRIMARY situation (but with page views currently not available, I can't say for sure). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
On other news I am getting a book, which has one page worth of information on the railroad Wobs100 (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
You can see it hereWobs100 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
This uses just Shenandoah Valley Railroad Wobs100 (talk) 03:34, 24 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) 16:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging because there is nothing to satisfy WP:NFILM in the article and I also did not find anything searching online.
The two books are barely more than directory listings. The first simply states that "His second film, the two-part Ayo Ni Mo Fe, is both funny and serious without being unduly melodramatic." and the second includes it in a list of films directed by Kelani.
I propose merging to the director Tunde Kelani🄻os🄰 15:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria. 🄻os🄰 15:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Did you see this from Naija News and this from Premium Times? Also, like I said in a previous AfD you nominated, Nigerian newspapers don’t have archives you can access to get sources for a 1994 movie. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:04, 22 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) 15:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Very small stub that does not appear to have any major edits since 2023. Draftifying might be the best route for it here. |One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. The sources cited in the article, as well as the others I found in my search for WP:SIGCOV, are all passing mentions of Wraith9 (mainly while discussing his collaborations with Drake and others) and do not offer any in-depth discussion of the subject. JavaHurricane 07:02, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't seem to be notable as of now. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 07:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: If it is kept it should be moved to Wraith9 which is currently a redirect to Rebel (mixtape). - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 07:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The article cites coverage in The Wire and Dazed, alongside reporting on Wraith9's production work and collaborations with other artists. I think the sources warrant a closer look before concluding that he fails WP:NMUSIC. The key question is whether these sources provide significant independent coverage, rather than merely mentioning his work. ~~~~
Keep as the creator of the article.As noted above, the subject has significant coverage from The Wire and Dazed.Furthermore, despite lack of detailed biography, music outlets explicitly recognise that his distinct influence on the UK Underground scene, especially for his production on EsDeeKid's Rebel and the 'ok' tag, elevates him beyond just a background producer. NEWYORKBAGELCATASTROPHE (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@U9 aloka and NEWYORKBAGELCATASTROPHE: none of the articles you have mentioned are actually discussing Wraith9 in detail. Namedrops and passing mentions do not count to notability as defined at WP:BASIC. And I see no evidence that any of the criteria under NMUSIC is satisfied. JavaHurricane 03:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
JavaHurricane: if Wraith9 were merely a passing namedrop, he would not have a documented history of coverage spanning from his early influence through the works of Zukovstheworld (as noted by Dazed) to his massive collaboration with Drake.Regarding WP:NMUSIC, his production entirely handled Rebel, which peaked on the US Billboard 200; attributing major commercial success to EsDeeKid while ignoring Wraith9's credit overlooks his dinstinct musical role in that achievement, proving he isn't a minor credit. NEWYORKBAGELCATASTROPHE (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@JavaHurricane I can tend to sound overly professional because of how strict wiki guidelines are but it doesn't change any of my points. NEWYORKBAGELCATASTROPHE (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep but move to Wraith9. Wraith9 is a notable figure and article is useful, though relies slightly too much on Dazed. Gauze↵ 17:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
By which provision is he notable? Is it provision #7 of WP:BAND? Bastobasto (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 15:19, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 13:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete None of the sources seem significant except one of the dazed ones. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC as a musician, and the guidelines don't cover producers. Bastobasto (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Only associated with other songs that have charted, nothing of their own that has, I don't see a pass a NMUSIC. Sourcing is more about the associated musical artists, not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
No sigcov, all I could find was a mention in one article in the Times of India, everything else is either WP:SPS/unreliable source Ar1201u1 (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The DNA source is arguably a primary source and there are no other sources meeting WP:GNCBastobasto (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I propose redirecting to Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada and Australia (this local parish church's diocese and where it is mentioned) because this subject does not pass WP:GNG for a standalone page. Sources are non-independent (diocese, press release), a two-sentence historical marker ( -- not WP:SIGCOV, and no evidence it's actually listed on a historic register), or do not mention the subject at all (, , ). Nothing comes up in WP:BEFORE search. Prior draftification was contested so I am bringing this redirect here for community consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 18:01, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a WP:NEOLOGISM from the "moxology" promotion of Moxie's old website: The only cite on the page, from the Bangor Daily News, directly calls this out as the origin. I have tried to dredge up sigcov but found nothing. chickenpox4dinner (talk·contribs·email) 03:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 18:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge A merge to Moxie seems to be a good idea Bastobasto (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to the main Moxie article. Mentioned here , briefly. That's about all I could find. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to List of craters on the Moon: G–K. Nothing has been written about the crater itself. The list can hold its name, coordinates, and eponym without loss. CocoaMuse (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge into Nansen (lunar crater), since it directly overlays the rim of that much larger formation. That way the comment about a permanently shadowed region can be included. Praemonitus (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged the comment, so we're covered either way. Praemonitus (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Another target has been proposed....thoughts on which one's the best....? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 19:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Pushing POV, fails WP:SIGCOV. Weak sourcing. Page is not properly structured either and seems to be written from a fixed individual POV. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Anti-Brahminism as an ATD-M. It can be covered there....both are trains on the same track. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 13:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
sourced mainly to own site and fringe outlets such as exopolitik, with no significant independent coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:FRINGEIndrasBet (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I can see that this article, while speedily deleted a number of times, has never been tested for notability via a formal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process, so here it goes.
It would appear that it is verifiable that there was a charitable institution of this or similar names established in 1918, according to interview published by the Imperial War Museum
Given that it was established in 1918, and is purported to be charitable institution supporting British returned sevices persons, I would have expected that it would have wide coverage in independent sources.
What I see here, at least in its current form, is quite possibly an advertisement for some other commercial enterprise that may have possibly used the St David's Home/St David's Home for Disabled Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen brand for their own purposes.
As always, wrong? right? something else? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment The current article appears to have mostly been copied from the Lost Hospitals reference, unless that came from a previous deleted version. An IA full-text search finds lots of passing references to St. David's Home in the press and books, but little in-depth coverage: The Story of the Growth of Nursing (1959) has half a page, and several books about Ealing such as Ealing and Hanwell Past (1991) and the London Gazetteer 2007 talk briefly about it when describing the history of Kent House, the building it occupies. Nexis finds several local articles in the Ealing Times (e.g. 2015-08-18, Help for more veterans as Ealing care home opens doors of new unit), and The Independent 1993-04-18 has Well, it's lovely to see you, a long article about the Queen's visit to St. David's Home for its 75th anniversary, later reused as a chapter in this book. I think the home, or at least the building, is probably notable, but the current text certainly needs replacing. Adam Sampson (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Ex-local councillor and unsuccessful candidate, does not pass WP:NPOL and sources with WP:SIGCOV aren't independent. Marked for notability and possible COI since 2014. Orange sticker (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
This article on a television series does not satisfy television notability or general notability because it is lacking in secondary coverage such as reviews. It was declined by User: Avgeekamfot for lack of notability, but then moved to article space unilaterally, which is permitted, but the reviewer had been right. A review of the sources (most of which were machine-translated for review) shows that most of them are television guide information that is either not independent or not secondary.
Has failed WP:GNG for a decade and looks like WP:FRINGE, would propose deleting or merging into Homeopathy is an alternativeIndrasBet (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep; homeopathy is too broad as a merge topic, and the topic is one of herbalism (strictly speaking) rather than homeopathy, even if it developed from the work of a 'homeopath'. Searches in Pubmed show that plenty of even modern articles use this term in the title of peer-reviewed publications:
Héjja M, György É, Lóga FÁ, Nagy R, Pacza T, Sipos P, Tankó G, Laslo É, Mészáros N, Turcuș V, Oláh NK, Máthé E (2025-10-21). "Gemmotherapy Extracts Like the Dog Rose, Lingonberry, Sea Buckthorn, Blackthorn, Common Grape, Hawthorn, Raspberry and Boxwood Feature Variable Yet Excelling Antimicrobial Effects". Antibiotics. 14 (10): 1052. doi:10.3390/antibiotics14101052. PMID41148744.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Héjja M, Mihok E, Alaya A, Jolji M, György É, Meszaros N, Turcus V, Oláh NK, Máthé E (2024-02-13). "Specific Antimicrobial Activities Revealed by Comparative Evaluation of Selected Gemmotherapy Extracts". Antibiotics. 13 (2): 181. doi:10.3390/antibiotics13020181. PMID38391567.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Tomczyk M, Dżugan M (2026-05-08). "Bioactive Compounds and Therapeutic Potential of Plant Buds: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives of Gemmotherapy". Molecules. 31 (10): 1559. doi:10.3390/molecules31101559. PMID42197114.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Téglás T, Mihok E, Cziáky Z, Oláh NK, Nyakas C, Máthé E (2023-04-19). "The Flavonoid Rich Black Currant (Ribes nigrum) Ethanolic Gemmotherapy Extract Elicits Neuroprotective Effect by Preventing Microglial Body Swelling in Hippocampus and Reduces Serum TNF-alpha Level: Pilot Study". Molecules. 28 (8): 3571. doi:10.3390/molecules28083571. PMID37110805.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Balta C, Herman H, Ciceu A, Mladin B, Rosu M, Sasu A, Peteu VE, Voicu SN, Balas M, Gherghiceanu M, Dinischiotu A, Olah NK, Hermenean A (2023-06-20). "Phytochemical Profiling and Anti-Fibrotic Activities of the Gemmotherapy Bud Extract of Corylus avellana in a Model of Liver Fibrosis on Diabetic Mice". Biomedicines. 11 (6): 1771. doi:10.3390/biomedicines11061771. PMID37371866.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Sarkova A, Sarek M (2005). "EAV and Gemmotherapy - Medicine for the Next Millennium? (technique as a means to link eastern and western medicine)". Conference Proceedings of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2005: 4943–4946. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2005.1615583. PMID17281353.
There are also many others that don't use the term in the title, but where the discipline is a key idea:
Charpentier T, Boisard S, Le Ray AM, Bréard D, Chabrier A, Esselin H, Guilet D, Ripoll C, Richomme P (2022-01-06). "A Descriptive Chemical Composition of Concentrated Bud Macerates through an Optimized SPE-HPLC-UV-MS2 Method-Application to Alnus glutinosa, Ribes nigrum, Rosa canina, Rosmarinus officinalis and Tilia tomentosa". Plants. 11 (2): 144. doi:10.3390/plants11020144. PMID35050032.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Williams R (2024-02-06). "Therapeutic Response of Meniere's Disease Utilizing Sorbus domestica". Cureus. 16 (2): e53702. doi:10.7759/cureus.53702. PMID38455836.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Schils A, Lechon AS, Rondeaux S, Souard F, Van Laethem JL, Pochet S, Mathieu V, De Vriese C (2023-12-06). "Cancer patients' behaviors and attitudes toward natural health products". BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. 23 (1): 442. doi:10.1186/s12906-023-04278-0. PMID38057795.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Blaise S, Garcin F, Seinturier C, Gilson M, Imbert B, Mercan A (2025-08). "Practical survey on the use of herbal medicine by patients with systemic sclerosis". Vascular Diseases (Paris). 50 (3–4): 104–110. doi:10.1016/j.vasdi.2025.05.002. PMID40762126. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Kovalikova Z, Lnenicka J, Andrys R (2021-07-12). "The Influence of Locality on Phenolic Profile and Antioxidant Capacity of Bud Extracts". Foods. 10 (7): 1608. doi:10.3390/foods10071608. PMID34359478.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Hage S, Morlock GE (2017-03-24). "Bioprofiling of Salicaceae bud extracts through high-performance thin-layer chromatography hyphenated to biochemical, microbiological and chemical detections". Journal of Chromatography A. 1490: 201–211. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2017.02.019. PMID28222858. Klbrain (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Withdrew my nom Thanks to Klbrain for finding the independent, significant coverage, so GNG is met and a merge into homeopathy doesn't fit either! IndrasBet (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Non-notable band. The creator attempted to create this 5 times and the first four were speedied as not asserting notability. This one somehow survived, but it isn't really any better. * Pppery *it has begun... 15:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Apart from the one source given that just links to google scholar, no other mentions I can find about the place. Falls into WP:GNG pretty sure. PeepeeDino (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Info - Note on soft closure: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion on account of a previous AfD closed as keep Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Subject does not appear notable, the only sourced linked is a bare listing of channels being moved to digital-only. I could not find any better source about the channel either. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, as the one source merely states that the channel exists, which doesn't confer notability. Also reads as very promotional as well. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Disclosure: I am paid by Pro-Fun Media GmbH, the group X-MO belongs to. Independent articles about the channel:
Thank you for your honorable handling of your COI.
I can't reach the first of the articles you list, but the other three are passing mentions with almost no analysis. I don't see anything to establish notability there, unfortunately. Support Redirect to List of adult television channels: happy to change my view if sources emerge. M kuhner (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. The Emerce page sits behind a bot check, which is probably why it does not load, and I could not find an archived copy. It is a news article of several paragraphs, mostly about X-Mo (with a few lines on the planned OutTV): it describes X-Mo as the first gay channel in the Netherlands, reports its 2007 launch on KPN Interactive TV and the CAIW cable network and its official launch during Amsterdam Pride, and quotes its initiator, Marc Putman of Medicons. If that is still not enough, a redirect to List of adult television channels is fine with us. ~2026-56475-66 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: the comment above is mine (Eriickda); I was logged out by mistake. Eriickda (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I am not seeing notability arising from the circumstances of being a spokesperson for an uprising against the Soviets in East Germany, spending some time in prison for that, and later elucidating researchers about what those times were like. He is currently not even mentioned in the lengthy article on the uprising itself, so I don't see how important he could have been to the event. BD2412T 03:16, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Some sources in German show up , . I can't translate the first and the second won't open past the preview. Any thoughts? Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose deletion as the individual can plausibly be selectively merged to East German uprising of 1953, if the sources, which appear to show a bare GNG pass, are considered unqualifiable.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 04:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL I'm not seeing a claim to notability. Furthermore, I am unable to find a school website or the usual routine sources Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2024–and given how relatively recent that was (as opposed to the non-P&G-based "keep" results common a decade ago and earlier in this topic area), that was on the basis of sources identified then that were never added to the article (while sources not in the article can contribute to notability, it is still good practice to add them ASAP to avoid future renomination). I offer no comment on the article or those potential sources, though. WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:37, 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) 04:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Renascitur has posted a set of Kenyan news sources that need evaluating against WP:NSCHOOL before this can be closed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: the additional sources provided do not fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH which is required for WP:NSCHOOL. 🄻os🄰 16:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch☎✎ 03:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Recently, a book has been published about him, further supporting his notability. I have not looked at the neutrality of the current article Dajasj (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I've just read the page, he looks to be notable enough outside of bunq to warrant an article. I'll mildly side with **Keep**. The Voivodeship King (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Does not inherit notability from Bunq and does not appear to meet the notability guidelines otherwise. Some information in #bunq could potentially be merged into Bunq#Regulations and anti-money laundering. mdm.bla 19:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer consensus. Opinion is divided between keep, redirect to bunq and delete, and the recent biography deserves more discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete — Additional searches yielded some ROUTINE sports coverage where the school gets minor mentions....but nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 18:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG The coverages are mostly routine including interviews, press releases, sponsored contents. There is no significant in-depth coverage required meeting notability standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - The subject is a well-known Indian entrepreneur and creative director who fully meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) through extensive, independent, and in-depth coverage in major national and international press outlets over more than a decade.
Business Standard: Multiple independent reports covering TVC campaigns and industry moves.
Film production work with Warner Bros. Pictures (e.g., The Commandant's Shadow) and major media acquisitions (e.g., controlling stake in MW.Com India / Rolling Stone India).
The current citations provide substantial non-trivial coverage from independent, reliable sources. The page should be retained and further improved rather than deleted. Vpheera (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment The above 'keep' !vote, and the user's further comments below, appear to be LLM-generated. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The subject being a well-known Indian entrepreneur is not a reason to meet GNG. Notability is not inherited in Wikipedia. Being the creator of this article, can you provide us the link of these reliable independent sources which you think are enough to meet GNG? You just simply stated these are reliable sources. The sources being reliable or not is only a secondary concern here. My concern is that they are covering mostly about something else rather than the subject himself. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
The references provided are not merely routine coverage or passive mentions; they directly analyze the subject’s individual contributions, creative leadership, and industry impact over a sustained period. For instance:
Coverage regarding his departure/entry as an industry jury member and creative director explicitly highlights his personal credentials and notability independently of the agency.
The feature reports in The Economic Times and The Hindu Business Line focus specifically on his career milestones, creative decisions, and entrepreneurial trajectory.
Under WP:GNG, in-depth coverage across multiple independent national publications establishing a sustained personal profile is sufficient. Keep. Vpheera (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The article has been further improved with verifiable coverage on awards and production achievements, fully backed by reliable independent secondary sources. This resolves all WP:GNG concerns. Vpheera (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – The subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NPERS. He is an Executive Producer for The Commandant's Shadow (distributed by Warner Bros. / HBO, International Emmy nominated), which has been widely covered in global independent media like Variety, The Guardian, and The New Yorker. Along with independent coverage in major national dailies (The Economic Times, Business Standard), there is more than enough coverage to establish independent notability beyond routine press releases. The page should be kept and improved, not deleted.Vpheera (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
@Vpheera: you have already !voted. You are only allowed one !vote in any given AfD discussion. I have therefore struck your latest !vote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Looking at the sources in the article, the creator above probably refers to these four sources. The first three do not provide sigcov of him. The last is paywalled, but in any case, one source is not enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 12:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to gently note that the article has been updated with several new, independent, and reliable media references (such as Adgully, afaqs!, Cinebuster, and PeepingMoon). These sources provide verifiable coverage of his prominent professional career and major media projects, including his role as an executive producer for the Warner Bros. documentary and upcoming global feature films. Please take a look at the updated references on the main page. Thank you. Vpheera (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: lacks any significant coverage. 🄻os🄰 18:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
These may provide additional context on his career and work in the advertising industry. I leave it to other editors to assess whether the sources offer sufficient independent, in-depth coverage for WP:GNG and whether they materially affect the discussion.
I have a paid professional connection with work on this article and disclose that conflict of interest. I am offering these sources for review, not advocating a predetermined outcome. Vpheera (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The first source is a self-published website, the second and third do not mention the marae, the fourth source does not provide detailed coverage, the fifth and six sources do not appear to mention it and are just parliamentary acts, the seventh, eight, and ninth sources are about a band, the tenth source is a spreadsheet about some funding it received.
I do not see any significant coverage of this marae when searching for it on Google Scholar or on Google with keywords. The marae can be mentioned at relevant articles like Ruatoria and Ngati Porou but I do not believe a formal merge is necessary given the state of the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I would prefer a merger here. What do New Zealand editors think would be a good target? Bearian (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I think content should be included in the target articles but I believe a formal merge is unnecessary given the content issues I pointed out. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Retain This reads like a reasonable stub for a small rural marae. Suggest that you put your energy into finding a couple of better sources instead of proposing deletion.
*:"the second and third do not mention the marae" - they are Te Ara articles that explain the iwi, and support the claim that Mangahanea is in its rohe. The "self-published website" is a well-resourced organisational homepage. The articles about "the band" could perhaps go under a heading (in popular culture? Herbs (band) certainly were popular for many people of a certain age...) Somej (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
>Suggest that you put your energy into finding a couple of better sources instead of proposing deletion
I suggest you read my nomination where I said I searched for sources; I searched on Google Scholar, the Heritage NZ archaeology database, and a general Google search with keywords.
The reference you added doesn't verify half the things its supporting.
'through the marriage of Hinetapora and Te Rangikaputua.', the terms 'marriage' and 'rangikaputua' do not appear in the source
'Work started on its carvings and interior panels during the 1880s and the house was formally opened in 1896' none of that is in the source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
> From the National Library page: "Inscription on print verso reads "Name of house = HINETAPORA located at Mangahanea, Ruatoria - opened c 1896";"
> I've got better things to do that argue this level of pedantry, enjoy the deletion discussion! Somej (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Its a print inscription, i.e. its not a claim from the National Library but instead an anonymous photographer and it says circa so even if it were reliable it doesn't support the claim. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Promotional article about a non notable actress with Reference bombing. Mostly known for a single movie A Pregnant Widow and the most of the references are about the movie and not the subject. Fails NACTRESS because of lack of notable roles in multiple movies. Fails GNG also. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Gross violation of WP:NOR, and I highly question whether it even passes WP:NLIST anyway. There's one dubious source in the article that attempts to classify these. And even if you can look past that, the article's very own "definition" is its undoing. The criteria are so arbitrary and have so many little special edge cases as to what counts as "transcontinental", that it's clear that this is a WP editor-defined concept, not something that naturally forms a clear topic that sources have discussed. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 17:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Leaning keep While I agree that the article isn't in an amazing state for the reasons you've listed, both the term "transcontinental country" and the idea of a country with territory in multiple continents does seem to exist. Goobab (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Please don't reply to the deletion sorting notice; it messes up threading.I mean, of course the term and the idea exist. The question is, "can we write an encyclopedic article about it in a way that reflects sources and doesn't require editors to cobble together their own criteria?" That seems to be a solid no. Look at the talk page archives. It's nothing but endless arguing over what counts and doesn't count, etc etc, culminating in this unopposed proclamation of what to include. I don't see how this is fixable. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 23:48, 12 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) 01:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Leaning Delete or complete TNT rewrite. I share the nom's concerns about the inclusion criteria, and the entries (are full of long-winded, trivial WP:SYNTH about edge cases, population centers being on one continent or another, pieces of land that overlap tectonic plates, etc. There doesn't seem to be a coherent central them or explanation of why "transcontinental countries" are special or significant. A lot of the non-contiguous examples are already covered at Dependent territory. –dlthewave☎ 15:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep There's some things which need fixing in this article, mostly sourcing for specific countries, but it's clearly discussed as a set: which isn't a great article but it is what it is. SportingFlyerT·C 22:19, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
It's not the only source, though other ones that were searchable in the short window I gave myself to look for sources looked AI generated, since it's now much harder to find good quality sources through simple web searches. SportingFlyerT·C 10:09, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
If there are are other sources that you would like us to consider, I would suggest listing them here. Currently the only sources in the article that contribute to notability are two pieces from World Atlas, which doesn't seem sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave☎ 14:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
"Transcontinental countries" appears in some academic literature in terms of defining whether a country should or should not be included in a continental grouping, i.e. Turkey, discussed in everything from sport to pediatric surgery. It's not WP:OR. Other sources include (Nigerian, so not great), (Times of India reprint on MSN)... but it's a pretty obvious concept. SportingFlyerT·C 15:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I wasn't able to find any other sources myself, although it's certainly possible there are some Polish language ones I missed. The reference from Pixel already in the article seems like it could be significant and reliable, although I had to rely on a translator to evaluate it. However, I don't think one good source is enough for WP:NCORP. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I thought Karen was a different company made by Lucjan Wencel? Either way, if that is the notable topic, maybe there should be an article on Karen with LDW redirecting to it. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I've looked at the sources mentioned already, none meet the criteria and having carried out my own searches, I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment The company isn't mentioned in the first book. The second book contains a passing reference. Neither meets the NCORP criteria for establishing notability. You've pointed to NPRODUCT but this topic is about a company, not a product, notability is not inherited. HighKing++ 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I might support this if the article topic is changed to Lucjan Wencel as an individual NCREATIVE. IgelRM (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Also have we looked at what is on Polish Wikipedia? That article is much more extensive and has reliable sources that can be used to verify the English Wikipedia article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
They use different criteria, we look for sources that meet WP:NCORP criteria (a specific implementation of GNG for companies with examples) which goes well beyond mere WP:RS. HighKing++ 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Move and change the article to Lucjan Wencel (alternatively Lucjan D. Wencel or Lucjan Daniel Wencel, sources use all of these, so no preference) per IgelRM and the sources provided in this discussion. From what I can tell, both of the books RightCowLeftCoast shared mention only California Dreams, not LDW, and Mika1h provided sources that describes Karen. Meanwhile, Lucjan is the founder of all three companies; the sources seem like more than enough to prove his notability. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Founding different companies alone is not sufficient notability. I was think if Wencel was the main developer of notable games, but does not appear to be the case. So Delete as is. IgelRM (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@IgelRM: hm, I thought he was the developer of the tetris clone Blockout, but it looks like even though it was developed by Wencel's company someone else did it. We also have articles for Street Rod, Tunnels of Armageddon, and Solidarność, but the sourcing on all of those is scant at best. Since this is the discussion on LDW anyway, I'll go back to my original recommendation of delete. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Not finding significant coverage in secondary sources about this living person. Tagged for over 10 years with This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Previously prodded by Cardiffbear88, with rationale, "Non notable composer. No evidence of any major coverage through WP:BEFORE". I agree there as well. Just not finding any major coverage of this individual in secondary sources. Thank you. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
He is one of the most prolific cartoon composers, helming multiple of Cartoon Network’s biggest shows in the 1990s and 2000s. It’s not like Dexter’s Lab or The Powerpuff Girls are small unknown projects, and he has multiple noteworthy industry accolades. Citations can be added. I don’t see how someone like Jim Lang is deserving but Steve Rucker isn’t. Schavira (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. It's not about who deserves to be on Wikipedia. The planet is overflowing with fantastic composers. The standard is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If none exists, it's hard to justify keeping an article. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources out there that confirm that Rucker was indeed one of the most prolific cartoon composers of his time, and the original user who proposed the deletion years ago says that the article has adequate citations now. Schavira (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a quick note Schavira - whilst I agree that there are enough sources to prevent deletion, I don't agree that there are adequate sources - all statements in a Wiki article must be able to be backed up by a source and we are nowhere near that standard yet. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - whilst I did nominate for WP:BLPPROD several years ago, it appears there are more sources in the article now and therefore could just about be described as notable. Schavira, are there other sources you can help us locate? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Sorry, I rarely participate in these discussions and was only summoned here by a notification on my phone. Yeah, it would probably be pretty easy to locate additional sources. I just don’t really edit Wikipedia much in my spare time as I work nearly every day. Schavira (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@Cardiffbear88:, thanks for opining here. I'm just not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Agree that the sourcing needs improvement, but even so, he presently meets WP:ANYBIO#1 with multiple Annie Awards noms and a win. nilnz 23:28, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - multiple major awards. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Ref 1 This is from a press-release. It not independent and fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 2 This is company website. it is not independent and fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 3 This is a duty of care on court reports as the local paper of record, a mandatory designation and a mandatory report. I don't think it is a particular good source.
Ref 4 This is a heavy interaction with CEO explaining to the paper they are going under, which initially has came from a press-release and then they've went and interviewed him. It fails WP:SIRS. Its not independent. None of this is.
There is no secondary sources here that pass WP:CORP/WP:GNG. To quote the man: This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least three deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Bankruptcy news is routine business news and doesn't pass WP:CORPTRIV. scope_creepTalk 09:03, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
The first of those is from USA Today. The last...yes, it's an interview. That's what papers do when something or somebody is notable. The widely-held argument that "oh, it's an interview, it's not independent and doesn't count" is highly disturbing. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
No they don't. Newspapers write anything that anybody tells them if they are paid to do so, within reason. Its from a press release. Go and look for it. WP:NCORP was rewritten in 2017 to explicity exclude interview style articles because Ceo's and company finance folk give lots and lots of interviews at the beginning at the company, making then not independent. Interviews when it comes to companies are always suspect and should be discounted if there is any mention of company officers. Its considered routine business news. That is long consensus. It is a branding exercise. The references explicity states "GLO promised on its website" "A New Orleans outfit revealed plans Tuesday for the nation's latest start-up carrier". That is why its discounted. Its been lifted from its press release intially when they have announced its starting up and then an interview in conversation with ceo, making it non independent and a clear fail of WP:SIRS. How do newspapers get this information. Company information is commercially sensitve, particularly operations, so when they talk about it, its becomes marketing and branding. They want to market. At that point, the company is unknown, except to small group of folk. So they spend effort, time and money to market. So you have to differentiate between market/branding which is of the new, when it comes to companies, from real WP:SECONDARY coverage, which is different kettle of fish. NCORP did that. Its effective in the differentiation. Here it is routine business news, marketing coming from the website and ceo from a newly launched company and is not independent, failing WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND. I would suggest you spend more time at WP:AFD. Its great to see you as your barely out of ANI and the place could do with you here. More folk the better. scope_creepTalk 14:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep I did find additional sources that have been added into the article. I see potential for expansion. – The Grid (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
No I don't think so. Lets look at the references you added:
Ref 1 added This is related to the company insolvency and fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its also a blog. Info comes from Fayard, company lawyer, failing WP:ORGIND.
Ref 2 You added this, which is from the flygo site, which is not independent.
Ref 3 I think you added this. It states clearly "I started GLO to deliver a superior product to my hometown and other worthy local markets, and I refuse to settle for anything less," GLO founder and CEO Trey Fayard said Tuesday in a statement". That is a press-release. Its not independent and fails WP:SIRS.
Having looked at, I don't see a single secondary source in this article that satisfies WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe you should step back from the AfD. I have seen more important things with this amount of scrutiny. I get it with AfD but this shouldn't feel like bulverism. – The Grid (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I have done 100's of company Afd's. The sources either support the article per WP:V, WP:NCORP or they don't. Wikipedia isn't in the business of maintaining brochure articles on non-notable companies. Does it say anywhere its an almanac. scope_creepTalk 21:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I found testimony from the owner about the airline but I imagine it's another primary source. (Also, another interview ) – The Grid (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of defunct airlines of the United States (D–I)#G as per suggestion below and as per WP:ATD. Deletechanged !vote This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. On the sources mentioned already, none meet the criteria and having carried out my own searches, I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. If the Keep !voters continue to disagree, please point out in any *one* specific article the section/page/paragraph that contains in-depth information about the company such that it meets NCORP criteria, and we can then re-evaluate, but from what I've seen, there's nothing that meets NCORP available. HighKing++ 11:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Yip, Seems reasonable to redirect it. scope_creepTalk 21:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I've changed my !vote - if there's WP:ATD available, that is always the preference. HighKing++ 13:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep: In addition to [], which is already in the article, there is also [], [] (1/2), [] (2/2) and [. Not the most successful airline by any means but there is enough for a WP:NCORP pass. Let'srun (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think you even read the WP:NCORP policy or even the articles themselves. Looking at the references:
Ref 11 It states "A glo spokesman said". Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 12 Fayard is the company ceo. An interview on a new route. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 13 In another article with Fayard speaking for this new startup. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 14 Fayard said in a statement which is a press-release.
I'm not sure if you read 12/13 properly since it is the same article, not two different articles, and is not an interview of Fayard. ORGIND notes that the independence of the author and the content must be considered, and it appears to me that it does do so with quotes from multiple people outside of the company providing in-depth analysis. I'll agree with you that a redirect to List of defunct airlines of the United States (D–I)#G is the best WP:ATD if the consensus is not to keep. Let'srun (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Same article. I didn't know that, but really it doesn't change much.
12 states "In a recent interview Feyard described the market reasearch".
13 Its another interview.
These are relatively short articles. There is no analysis. Analysis is a company report of 50 pages or 93 pages, not a quarter of a page, using info from a company ceo. The coverage is indicative of a company that started then failed and has little historical value, and that is reflected in the poor quality of the sources. You need to differentiate between what is notable and what is not. Folk start up companies, like buttering their toast in the morning. Its ultra common. They are very noisy at the beginning to get noticed and then dissapear if unsuccesful. Local papers will report it because it potentially means more employment meaning a greater readership but it is entirely routine in nature. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Being a failed company doesn't make it non-notable, otherwise we wouldn't have many articles on companies here. Including a quote from someone at the company doesn't make something an interview, and it is quite frankly ludicrous to claim as such. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand the behavior because there's always promotional material that gets through on here. What I have learned about this company is that an attorney wanted to make an airline beneficial for specific flights around New Orleans because the options were very limited. The guy even testified to the U.S. House about his limitations after negotiations went sour. There should be a rational nexus that the airline operated for two years to prevent a more detailed analysis but the information out there is consistent. I guess I am seeing this article like how I have built up previous history-based articles. – The Grid (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment It would make more sense if those Keep !voting editors who are engaging here, like The Bushranger, Let'srun and The Grid, pick one source and point out where it contains in-depth independent content sufficient to meet WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH? It would certainly facilitate a focused discussion. Based on the sources in the article and here to date, none meets NCORP criteria. Not a single one. This is the task at AfD, to identify sources which meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, and we should focus on specific sources, not volumes of link-salad. HighKing++ 13:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The article I linked from The Commercial Appeal, while it includes a couple of quotes from the CEO in the introduction, also includes several paragraphs of secondary analysis regarding the business and meets the WP:AUD as being from a large regional newspaper. I also think that sources 5 and 6 in the article also do a good job with providing sustained and significant coverage regarding the activities of the company. I do agree that there has been some WP:REFBOM in this discussion but that the totality of the coverage is enough. Let'srun (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Noting ref 5 and 6 are based on this revision. I have provided a better flow of the article with the sources present on the article, trying to also minimize refbombing. Fayard did a speech to the United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation in April 2017 (separate from the bankruptcy) and the transcript provides a somewhat in depth history given its short life. – The Grid (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
What I'm really looking for is some extra precision on your part when identifying specific in-depth independent content about the company - focussed on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND primarily because this is where most sources struggle. You say there are "several paragraphs of secondary analysis" ... but which paragraphs exactly? The first article you mention, entitled "Fayard sees business travelers on Memphis route", relies entirely on information provided by the CEO, constantly mentioning things that the CEO said, and this type of article does not contain even a single sentence of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, and clearly fails ORGIND. Even if you wanted to stretch matters and argue that every sentence that isn't directly attributable to a quotation, most of the remaining are not about the company and whatever is remaining amounts to a handful of sentences with no in-depth information about the company.
As to references 5 and 6. Again I ask, are there any specific paragraphs that you believe contains in-depth independent content about the company? From my reading, both those references appear to be based entirely on the content of court filings - see WP:SIRS - court filings are not independent content because they're written by the parties and fails ORGIND. Also, the dispute is not notable, nor the contents of the dispute, unless you wish to create an article on the dispute as an event. I'm looking specifically for in-depth independent content about the company. Repeating known facts such as the company had filed for bankruptcy protection is not independent content. Quoting from their filing is not independent content. Repeating stats which are available on the website is not independent content. These references fail ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. What am I missing? HighKing++ 14:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep interviews can be used to support notability including in this case. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
No they can't, by long consensus. Are you planning to ignore consensus? scope_creepTalk 07:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
You'll find that WP:ORGIND says they can't. Do you have a policy/guideline that says differently? HighKing++ 14:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd close as no consensus, but given active discussion, I'll relist. If no comments after this notice, this can probably be closed as no consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of defunct airlines of the United States (D–I)#G, per HighKing. Regarding interviews, my understanding of the NCORP guideline is that interviews are primary sources and can't be used for notability (see the secondary section). However, as outlined in the essay WP:Interviews, just because someone is being quoted, even extensively, doesn't mean it is an interview. Such a source could have secondary content that is separate from the quoted content, especially if there is some kind of transformation. This type of content would also satisfy WP:ORGIND, given that the source is unaffiliated with the subject.
With that said, I don't think the sources listed here or those currently in the article are enough to prove notability. A lot of the coverage just seems like WP:CORPTRIV to me, and the articles pointed to as independent coverage seem almost entirely composed of quoted material. While I couldn't access the Newspapers.com clippings, per Scope_creep those aren't independent. I also couldn't find any new sources, with a lot of WP:ROUTINE and trivial coverage (e.g. bankruptcy, new routes, business partners). ExitTheWarrior (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The Arrow episode and Order of assassins can become a hatnote in the main article. The other instance is just another link to the main page Emcgonigle (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keepLeague of Assassins (Arrowverse) does point to League of Assassins, but to a subsection, so there is some navigational worth there, and this is the home for the Order of Assassins in See also. So I find this somewhat more elegant and helpful than purely a hatnote, and I also believe WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP applies more or less to this disambiguation page, too. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to MaRS Discovery District because sources do not support notability. No sources about her provide significant coverage . Other sources are not about her but about businesses she ran. the proposed target is the only one with an article. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: She has/had affiliations with two entities with Wikipedia articles (the proposed target and Artscape), so I don't see a strong case for redirecting to one over the other. I don't see any evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NBIO; the coverage of her is WP:ROUTINE mentions of job changes in the business press, not WP:SIGCOV. She seems to be a WP:ROTM businesswoman. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Artscape is a disambiguation page that does not include the organization she ran. However, a quick check of Ontario newspapers on newspapers.com has led me to believe that it does pass WP:NORG, so at this point I don't have any strong preferences on deletion or redirection. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge selectively, as opposed to a plain redirect, and as reasonable in these circumstances. A brief description and three citations are sufficient. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Based on the article and the included references, I am not convinced this biography meets notability standards. Since this is secondary education and I can't find any substantial published research, WP:PROF doesn't apply. The only notable achievement is the national education award he won, and this is all the sources cover. Without any other independent coverage I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Ajheindel (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 18:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: It's confusing - what did he win an award for? Bearian (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
You can read more about the award at its page, National Award for Teachers (India), it is given to "meritous" educators, but it is a little vague on how that is defined. Ajheindel (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:N and WP:CREATOR. The subject is a social media personality whose coverage relies entirely on short-lived tabloid news, personal feuds, and viral incidents (WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP) rather than sustained encyclopedic notability. They are literally including links to social media accounts within the article. Egyptiankeng (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Covered by O Globo and CNN. Only two sources giving singificant coverage are required, so this clearly passes WP:GNG, due to these and half a dozen other reliable sources. Media personalities are not barred from wikipedia, even if they are notable only within the world of media gossip and scandal. WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS relate to what should be included in an article, they have no bearing on the notability of the individual concerned.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
No, two sources—especially ones that primarily discuss topics like quarrels—are not sufficient to write a full Wikipedia article about someone. Furthermore, based on what you’ve said, everything currently in the article should be removed; it’s a mess.
and tabloids are not "reliable sources", Wikipedia is not a newspaper; your entire article should not consist of your personal problems, quarrels, and social media links. Egyptiankeng (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
There's nothing in those policies which is relevant to the notability of this article. The general notability guidelines WP:GNG state There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. In practice, articles at AfD with two sources dealing in detail with the subject, from mainstream news services are kept. However, there are many more than two sources here. The ones on the article are sometimes not of the best quality, but we also have coverage in Folha de Sao Paulo, Terra , DOL and dozens of other sites. This person is clearly quite well-known in Brazil, and I could point you to dozens of articles relating to less notable individuals. I don't think there is much substance to your objections here. Wikipedia frequently deals with intensely trivial topics, and this is one of them.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Creator of this page notified of deletion discussion.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi! A new incident involving her recently took place, and I think more sources could be added to the article. Questionadora ávida (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Such nomination is insufficient without a proper analysis of cited sources. Zalaraz (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
'''Keep''' – I disagree with the characterisation that the available coverage is entirely routine. Andy Donley’s feature in ''Mancunian Matters'', published on 13 April 2016, addresses the league directly and in considerable detail. It examines its formation, the restructuring of existing local competitions, its promotion and relegation structure, and the participation and player-development objectives behind its establishment. This goes beyond routine reporting of fixtures, results or individual matches and is relevant to [[WP]].
The article was published by a news outlet separate from the league and is a bylined journalistic feature, although it draws substantially on an interview with the league chairman. It should therefore be assessed on its editorial independence and substantive content, rather than dismissed as routine sports coverage.
I favour retaining and improving the article. Under [[WP]], the assessment should consider the suitable sources available, rather than only the current state of the article’s referencing. Diatu (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – The assertion that the league receives only routine coverage overlooks substantive reporting about the organisation itself. In particular:
John Fuller’s “A new era for the Huddersfield Premier Cricket League” (Cricket Yorkshire, 8 January 2025) provides extended discussion of the league’s position within Yorkshire cricket, its transition to ECB Premier League status, governance and facilities requirements, and implications for player registration and regional competition. This is analysis of the league as an institution, rather than a match report or results summary.
Fuller’s earlier “Huddersfield Cricket League: tradition, technology and transfers” (Cricket Yorkshire, 21 April 2018) also discusses the league’s history, structure and decision to remain outside the then-existing Yorkshire league pyramid, although parts of that article are routine season-preview material.
The first two sources provide substantial coverage in publications separate from the league, addressing its organisation and development rather than simply recording sporting results. Taken together, I consider these sufficient to support a case under WP.
The league’s age and ECB status are relevant context, but my argument does not depend on either automatically conferring notability. It rests on the available substantive coverage. These sources can support an expanded account of the league’s development and organisation, so improving the article’s sourcing and prose is preferable to deletion. Diatu (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
As a site primarily covering cricket related stuff Cricket Yorkshire isn't an independent source for this case. Vestrian24Bio 16:28, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
What? Writing articles about cricket doesn’t mean they’re secretly funded by John Cricket himself. ~2026-57294-94 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:36, 28 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.
The subject contents are heavily overlapping. This article would appear to be a subset of Minifootball, especially as this article goes on to discuss the variants of 5-a-side football. Rainjar (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - although never heard of 'minifootball'. GiantSnowman 18:58, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Neither had I, but due to the overlap in the two articles between 2 to 8 sided football, minifootball might be a better title than 5-a-side football. On my forum which I use to organise 5, 6, 7 and 8-a-side games, I use the term "generic football". Rainjar (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I found a disambiguation page for Mini football. The descriptions of Minifootball and 5-a-side football are almost identical. It does explain that Minifootball comes under the World Minifootball Federation, which may be sufficiently distinguishing. 5-a-side football still needs consideration though. The World Minifootball Federation is also addressed in the 5-a-side football article, which undermines any distinction. Rainjar (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – a widely played form of the game with Guardian coverage and governing-body documentation. Kukuryza (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
It's a merger proposal, not strictly a deletion proposal. There is no need for two articles on the variants of 2 to 8-sided football Rainjar (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – It is also a Paralympic category for the blind. Significant enough for its own article. Svartner (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Then the article should be limited to the Paralympic event(s), otherwise, it significantly overlaps. Rainjar (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merger: From my perspective, we have Five-a-side football from 2005 that explains that it is a generally informal variant of the standard 11v11 soccer/football, we have Seven-a-side football that split off in 2020 that focuses on competitions, and we have Minifootball which was also started in 2020 that focuses on competitions that appears to be governed by groups such as the World Minifootball Federation. Personally, I don't understand this merge request. To myself, it would be like merging most to all of Eight-man football into Arena football as Arena football is an 8v8 variant of US football. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
As stated by Ar1201u1 below, rather than have two or more articles each dealing with several but not all variations of less-than-11-sided football, all variations ought be in one overview article. The differences are often in nomenclature, and that needs to be any addressed in that primary article. If any one variation is sufficiently unique, it may be deserving of its own page, but then that article should be focused on that one variation. Having overlapping overviews in different articles is confusing and unncessary. Rainjar (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Except that how this merge would occur, it would put all of the variants under an article that is about competitive a number of competitive organizations.
To make my point clearer, we keep the Soccer and FIFA articles separate rather than merging the Soccer article to be contained within the FIFA article. In this situation, my viewpoint of five-a-side football is that it should cover amateur, professional, and recreational football while Minifootball should cover the various professional leagues and organizations associated with or tied to World Minifootball Federation and related governing football bodies. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Support: A reader coming to a sports page should be able to at least get all variations of the concerned sport in that article itself; with exceptions only for things like Chess960Ar1201u1 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:03, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
This is similar to the debate we had over Sabbath school and Sunday school (where the subjects are strongly overlapping, Sunday school is the commonly used term, but a sabbath school does not necessarily take place on a Sunday). Five-a-side is probably a far more common name than Minifootball, so per WP:COMMONNAME, if we merge, we ought to reverse-merge minifootball into five-a-side, but logically that won't do because minifootball encompasses other team-sizes. Meanwhile minifootball seems to be a term used a lot in connection with umbrella organisations, so you could argue there is a difference in usage between the two terms, which could be reflected in different content. It might therefore be preferable to keep them separate to avoid all these difficulties. Elemimele (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree, but if we proceed down this path, minifootball should be limited to versions which have official/governing bodies, while 5-a-side can cover the subject more broadly, covering all the variations, and governing bodies. But then, would the title "5-a-side" be appropriate, when it could be anything from 2 to 10 sided football? I pointed out earlier that there is a mini football disambiguation page, which actually could form the basis of a more general article on all the forms of limited-sided football. Rainjar (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
It is starting to sound like the better situation would be to rename this article and have five-a-side football redirect to a specific section. (Though, it would likely need to be something like "List of limited-sided football" or so.) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge rather than delete into Lincolnshire Premier League, with a redirect from this title. Although the available sources may not establish sufficient independent significant coverage for a separate article, there is verifiable material about the creation of the successor competition that could be incorporated into the existing article.
The Voice (22 April 2026) reports the merger into a single league pyramid, the reduction of the top division to ten teams, and the consequences for promotion. While the remainder is largely match reporting, these opening paragraphs provide coverage of the reorganisation itself.
A clearly labelled section covering the 2026 restructuring would preserve this information while distinguishing the former league from its successor. I therefore propose a merger and redirect as an alternative to deletion under WP. Diatu (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Nom is a sock, but we have an extant delete !vote so this cannot be procedurally closed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: the subject does not have enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant notability Brodska213 (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
To bolster WP:SIGCOV, I added new citations from The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Fortune, Forbes, The Information, Vox, and Al Arabiya English. I also added a sentence about the criticisms faced by the company.
I think it's important for an entry on Sanabil to exist in some form (even if it's not my wiriting), as they are playing an increasingly prominent role in politically salient investments around the world. The amount of money they're wielding and its sources are noteworthy. Many of the company's peers (Andreesen Horowitz, 500 Global, etc.) have Wikipedia pages.
Instead of being deleted, this page could be merged into the entry for the Public Investment Fund (for example, an expert might question Sanabil's independence from PIF). However, I think Sanabil merits it's own page and the PIF page does not currently have a section exploring its wholly-owned constituent companies. Grimpen mire (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I think sufficient sourcing is there based on GM's additions and we can consider sig cov Ar1201u1 (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Non-notable team competing in a barely notable series. Of sources, 2 of these are primary sources and the other no longer exist. Had a look around per WP:BEFORE and found nothing. BuffaloTaro (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment – A "barely notable series"? It competed in FR3.5 – a series standing below only Formula One – and came runner-up. Not leaving a !vote until I see good sources but this is remarkably poor from the nominator. Could potentially be merged into Signatech if no sources emerge. MSport1005 (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The article was created by a UPE editor. After reviewing the available sources, the subject does not meet WP:GNG and fails the general notability guideline. The article was also deleted from the Russian Wikipedia, which is relevant given the application's country of origin. Semerotan (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes(Talk) 23:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the nominator has since been blocked themselves as a UPE editor. No opinion on the article, beyond that this has been tagged as a potential NPRODUCT failure almost since its creation in March. WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Bases off your assessment and the sources I see, I'm happy to throw in a !vote for Delete. guninvalid (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fynd (brand) was closed as no consensus due to keep !votes from two low-edit-count users and another user later blocked for undisclosed paid editing. I've waited the customary 3 months after a no consensus discussion as suggested by the closer, so let's try this again. Of the sources presented during that AfD:
Harvard Business School is sufficient to count, but one source cannot create an article by itself
Inc42 fails WP:ORGIND as it consists entirely of content attributed to the company. RGB49D claimed While it references the pitch deck, it also contains original reporting, but I don't see it and am inclined to give that claim zero weight as the user was blocked for UPE.
AnalyticsIndiaMag consists primarily of content attributed to the company (whole paragraphs are quotes from the founders) and hence fails WP:ORGIND. Some of the paragraph aren't quoted but it appears highly unlikely that they would so their own analysis of half of the company's history and let the founder speak for the other half -- far more likely they are paraphrases of what the founder said. This falls far short of the requirement in WP:ORGIND that the content be clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
Business Standard is behind a paywall, but just from the title alone ("Meet the data geek who builds robust sales models for small shopkeepers") and the puffy language in the first paragraph ("Data is akin to oxygen for any modern day commerce, whether online or even offline") I can tell this is clearly not going to satisfy WP:ORGIND.
Finally, remember this is an Indian topic so all sources need to be viewed with an extra layer of skepticism (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA/Paid news in India). And with that, I've responded to the previous round of vacuous, likely motivated arguments to keep this article created by WP:GAMENAMEing in clear circumvention of proper processes. Let's see what the next round brings ... * Pppery *it has begun... 23:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fyndoune from 2009 was on a completely different subject that happens to start with "Fynd", and is simply a false positive of how the "AfDs for this article" works; to the best of my knowledge, it is the only AfD in that list that is not some iteration of the Indian software company subject. (No opinion on the article.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
It cites W3C standards published as recently as 2021. Most notable, IMHO.
Further regression will be caused by breaking the consistency with HTML element and losing specific detail that helps a reader’s understanding. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Not AI, so please consider my manual copy edit first?
I oppose deletion for “does not appear notable” because, IMHO, how can’t publications from active W3C Workgroup be? They’ve even won 3-4 Emmy’s.
Also, most other W3C Workgroups are recognized as notable enough to have their own Wiki. Removing this one in particular would make it all inconsistent. Thereby worse.
Also, Google just (2026) finished deleting all XSLT libs / references from Chrome. Right when their Chrome Platform Status indicated XSLT rose to historical [click it in the graph ahead ] peaks in ‰ of page loads.
In the same vein, what’s up with deleting this for not a tutorial when ‘HTML Elements’ are allowed to supplement ‘HTML’ with brief descriptions about actual functionality? That would also worsen Wikipedia because it’ll create internal incoherency’s, bias, etc. Worse still. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Forgot to include this link to the XSLT 1.0 Tutorial by D. Olteanu at Oxford Department of Computer Science:
Compare and contrast with this encyclopedic mention ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I hate AI, but fired op the latest Apple Intelligence with the beta firmware that I was allowed in to bla bla.
Proof-read had no notes, locally and private cloud compute. ChatGPT wasn’t queried.
Rewrite resulted in [AI reduction]
It cites W3C standards published as recently as 2021. Most notable, IMHO. Further regression will be caused by breaking the consistency with HTML elements and losing specific detail that helps a reader’s understanding. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to Kana Software because its own article appears to be written for the purpose of advertisement and is primarily sourced by press releases, with two sources failing to verify. Searching for sources didn't reveal anything supporting independent notability. Coverage was mostly about the acquisition. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 21:18, 20 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) 01:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. The last nom got sidetracked by a LTA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep: As far as notability, there is more sourcing than a repeat of several of the same. It was the first Pacific hurricane penetrated by a Hurricane Hunters aircraft. That does add an element of being "worthy of notice". Not opposed to merging into 1973 Pacific hurricane season. Sometimes splitting an article is beneficial when there is absolute notability. Merging into the parent article would enhance that article. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep, subject of AfD has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and has been mentioned multiple times since 1973 in reliable sources as a bench mark hurricane to compare other hurricanes against.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: First, I want to restore the context that User:Sunfyre has omitted through classic Decontextualisation and a straw man argument. I previously warned User:Oshwah on their talk page about a group of Persian Wikipedia users who engage in censorship and sabotage of anti-regime articles and target anti-regime contributors. They censor and sabotage anti-regime (especially pro-Pahlavi) articles on Persian Wikipedia, and this is not an isolated incident. As an immediate example, they in Persian Wikipedia, recently brought Yasmine Pahlavi up for deletion despite multiple reliable sources and citations. They also deleted Noor Pahlavi, which had to be restored after years of fighting these censorship attempts, despite having enough reliable sources. In this case, after a Persian Wikipedia user’s attempt to place a speedy-deletion tag on my article (in Persian wiki and here), failed due to the lack of grounds under the relevant criteria, they brought it to a deletion discussion and pursued the same outcome on Persian Wikipedia.
The broader context matters: the Islamist regime controls internet access in Iran and has an organized and systematic campaign to influence online platforms, including Wikipedia. Our situation as Iranian users inside Iran was not the same as that of other users, and we had to overlook certain Wikipedia guidelines (without breaking Wikipedia's rules) to protect our own lives. Persian Wikipedia has been affected by the regime's organized propaganda campaign, including efforts to flood the platform with regime-aligned users in various forms and through the recruitment, coercion, or compromise of editors and administrators.
The very well-known and notorious case of User:Mardetanha even attracted media attention. Following years of suppressing anti-regime contributors (including me) and censoring related articles, he was ultimately banned from the community indefinitely by the Wikimedia Foundation. Some of the blocks User:Sunfyre cites against me were imposed by administrators such as User:Mardetanha himself. At one point, I was blocked for criticizing him, despite having acted within the rules, and was unblocked only after I had to apologize. This history matters when evaluating attempts to use my block record to discredit me or assassinate the character of a user whose work spans years of lasting contributions to Wikipedia across its projects, from his teen age until today.
My many articles and years of valuable contributions to Wikipedia projects were disrupted by Persian Wikipedia administrators such as User:Mardetanha, who suppressed us and either forced us into isolation or left us vulnerable to being targeted or ambushed by their classic 'gotta!' tactics that are classic behavior of the regime agents. Someone needs to put an end to this once and for all. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia foundation failed to protects its users and hold such bad actors accountable sooner and for years such admins and users succeeded to sabotage and disrupt Wikipedia projects and abuse their administration access to suppress and isolate anti-regime and pro-Pahlavi users.
I also criticized User:Sunfyre himself for what I saw as a similar pattern of targeting anti-regime and pro-Pahlavi contributors for creating and editing articles on anti-regime subjects, which may or may not influence his approach toward me and my contributions. He is known to hold strong anti-Pahlavi views, and I believe he has failed to keep them from influencing his conduct as an administrator. He has sought to discredit me and my years of encyclopedic contributions rather than address these concerns, including my exceptional situation as an Iranian user and human being. For editors working inside Iran, this was not an abstract dispute: I feared for my life and safety because regime-aligned administrators had access to our IP addresses. We were subjected to this situation, with no meaningful help. We were desperate young and teenage users who were actively trying to hide our identities to protect our lives. Something that may seem normal to many English Wikipedia users was, for us, a matter of life and death.
My position remains the same as I stated there: this article meets Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability (people), reliable-sourcing, and Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements. That is why I proceeded to create it in the first place, after realizing that it satisfied these Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And that is enough to keep it. Deleting an article that satisfies Wikipedia's rules breaches those rules, which is what happened on Persian Wikipedia. They have turned Wikipedia into a democracy, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Due to the regime's control over the internet, its influence on Persian Wikipedia, and the lack of enough active, independent Persian-speaking users, regimi users maneuver freely in doing so. Just read the arguments there. Articles with substantially weaker claims to notability have been kept by certain Persian Wikipedia administrators, while anti-regime and pro-Pahlavi subjects have faced disproportionate deletion, censorship, sabotage, and overt scrutiny. Certain guidelines (not rules) needed to be overlooked in my case because of my exceptional situation as an Iranian whose identity as a Wikipedia user must be protected because exposure is life-threatening. Certain Persian Wikipedia users attempted to push for my exposure and doxxing, apparently for this very reason.
I urge English Wikipedia participants not to let the decontextualized and false argument presented by User:Sunfyre and the other similar users involved in the initial speedy-deletion and subsequent deletion attempts determine the outcome. Persian Wikipedia's circumstances, including the Islamist regime's control over internet access and its documented efforts to influence editors through recruitment, coercion, or compromise, deserve serious consideration and investigation. For that reason, deletions on Persian Wikipedia should not automatically be taken at face value without examining this broader context, especially when articles concern anti-regime and pro-Pahlavi topics.
I hope these cases prompt an independent Wikimedia Foundation investigation into Persian Wikipedia administrators and accountability for those found to have abused their positions, including those who followed the pattern associated with User:Mardetanha. There is much more to discuss, but I will stop here for the sake of brevity. Thank you for your attention. Sandboxerr (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
"For the sake of brevity". That's a good one! Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
It is also worth mentioning the context, that I had completely lost access to my main account and its email and created this account for that reason, having lost hope of recovering access. That is why I created this account in the first place, not for the reasons those who wish to misrepresent the situation suggest. Some time after creating this account, I asked a Wikimedia administrator named Matthew Hill for help recovering my original account, and he assisted me in doing so. I regained access to it only a short while ago and have not edited with it so far. Consequently, I did not violate the sockpuppetry policy, as this account was created for legitimate reasons, not to mislead the community. I had already publicly disclosed the situation on Persian Wikipedia, and I am now explaining it here as well. Furthermore, I never edited with both accounts simultaneously. If I had access to my original account, I would have created my article using that account on both Wikipedias and did not need to do it with this, as this topic (Iran politics) falls within my years of contributions, area of expertise, and preference for editing on Wikipedia, and I have previously created many similar articles with similar topic like this. As I explained, in light of WP:IGNORE, I had to temporarily overlook certain guidelines (and not binding rules) because of my exceptional circumstances at the time. My actions were motivated primarily by the loss of access to my main account, as well as other important concerns, and not by any intention to evade or circumvent Wikipedia's policies. Using a sockpuppet account for legitimate reasons and concerns is allowed and tolerated under Wikipedia's rules. Thank you. Sandboxerr (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I first became aware of possible issues with disruption to this article while I was patrolling logs and recent changes. I saw that a temporary user had removed a speedy deletion tag (originally added by PlainMarkup) from this article, and I reverted the edit in order to restore it. I then reviewed the speedy deletion tagging, determined that the article content made a credible claim of significance and wasn't eligible for A7, and declined and removed the tag afterwards. Sandboxerr then started the discussion on my user talk page that they provided a permalink to in their response above (the entire discussion can be found here). The user talk page discussion and the response above both contain lengthy allegations and claims regarding other editors, involvement with "cyber agents for the Islamic regime in Iran" (quoted from this diff), and repeated attempts to disrupt or remove the article on this project and the Persian Wikipedia. These claims can easily become a distraction and a rabbit hole for participants here to jump into, and I urge everyone participating in this discussion to keep in mind and remember that these claims are completely irrelevant, remain focused on determining whether the article subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and base their responses off of this determination. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:11, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Rationale for keeping: As the administrator suggested, I will avoid going down any rabbit holes and discuss only the article itself. I present my entire final rationale below and leave the final decision to the judgment of the participating editors and administrators.
Consistency of coverage - WP:BIO: The subject has received consistent and continuous coverage, which has continued even after this AfD began. Deleting an article despite continuing coverage of a subject who meets the notability criteria is a redundancy since such articles often may be created again and it's unnecessary when any shortcomings can be addressed through editing. Wikipedia's deletion policies support considering improvement and other alternatives to deletion.
Self-published sources claims - WP:SELFPUB: Certain op-ed sources used in the article are not necessarily considered self-published, since the platforms do not belong to the author himself and are independent publications. Under English Wikipedia policy, an autobiographical op-ed published by an established news organization is not automatically considered self-published merely because the subject wrote it. Therefore, WP:Selfpublish is not automatically violated by using such material. While op-eds do not establish notability through independent coverage, they may supplement the article where appropriate. Wikipedia rules allow such supplementary use. The subject's notability is independently supported by direct coverages in multiple reliable, notable and independent sources. Any concerns about individual claims or citations can be addressed through editing and improvement, rather than using them alone as grounds for deletion.
Conclusion based on WP:ATD and WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP: I respectfully support keeping the article based on its independent, consistent coverage and the availability of further ordinary editorial improvements to satisfy Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Thank you. Sandboxerr (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As Oshwah mentioned, the future of this article will be decided based on the strength of its sourcing; nothing else. An independent source assessment would be helpful here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 18:13, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Sanboxerr, please let us hear from others. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Independent Montreal record label and artist-management company that does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search finds the label mentioned mainly in passing as the label or management company of Charlotte Cardin, or in profiles of its executives (e.g. the Billboard Canada Power Players / "Manager to Watch" pieces, which focus on Jason Brando and Laurie Chouinard as individuals). I could not find significant, independent, reliable secondary coverage of the company itself, as WP:ORGDEPTH requires. Moarnighar (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)— Blocked sockpuppet of Loewstisch, see investigation.
Delete - the record label itself does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG guidelines. Of the listed sources, 1 is hardly WP:SIGCOV for the label, 2 is a passing mention, 3 could be fine (paywalled), 4 doesn't seem to mention, 5 is self published ("we develop artists..."), 6 and 7 are self published (see how the website works) and it doesn't even seem to be verifiable that they are children companies of Cult Nation, 8 and 9 no/passing mention. With a WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any other sources. Either way, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. If you look at articles of other record labels -- Blue Grape Music for instance, they typically have sources discussing the label itself directly, which this article also lacks. Bungle491 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry, but there is an existing non-keep !vote, so this nomination does not qualify for WP:SK4. No opinion on the article otherwise. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Bungle491 above. I cleaned up the promotional tone earlier, but concerns remain about notability. Redirecting to Jason Brando was one possibility, but on a closer look that article has the same problems as this one - it's nearly all "notability by association" coverage, rather than significant secondary coverage of the subject of the article. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes(Talk) 23:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I can't find any significant, independent secondary coverage about this website. The best I could find was in Media Bias / Fact Check, which is not a reliable source according to WP:MBFC. This "Foreign Policy Journal" website should be evaluated under Wikipedia:Notability (web), rather than Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), because it is not an academic journal.
The earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign Policy Journal was withdrawn by the nominator after discussion about the posts on the website having been cited by various publications. That does not fulfill the notability criteria for websites (WP:WEBCRIT), which are whether the website has been the subject of significant independent coverage or won an independent award. Citations to a website are not significant coverage about the website. I can't find any records of the website winning an independent award.
Note that I deleted content from the article that was either synthesis of brief mentions or only supported by dubious websites (europeanfinancialreview.com and congress.net). Dreamyshade (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I also looked and can't find any independent coverage of the website. Fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with Foreign Policy. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree with this as the target for the contents. However, I say original page should be deleted after the polls are moved. Nixinova T ⁄ C 03:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete — Additional searches yielded some ROUTINE annual sports reportage....but nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 18:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Kashipur, Uttarakhand#Education, where it's mentioned, as an ATD-R. Found nothing with SIGCOV in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 18:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging per WP:DUP and WP:OVERLAP. I believe that there is a significant amount overlap between the pages, and the content here could flush out the superpower page. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 09:53, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Topic notable on its own. It is huge enough to stand on its own. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact) 15:32, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps, but not now. Happy to revisit this question when both article stabilize. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 17:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
For clarity, I agree there is a lot of duplicate content. However, right now I have no position whether content on this page should move to Superpower, or the other way. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 18:03, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Strong keep as a notable topic that deserves to be discussed in depth on its own. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – the concept is analysed in Foreign Policy and in academic books cited throughout the article. Kukuryza (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
GeogSage, you'll have been having a hard time convincing others to agree with you. May you please withdraw this nomination? Thanks. —George Ho (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
No. I'm not convinced this is notable enough as an independent topic, and am not impressed with the arguments opposed. It is impossible to convince people to change their mind when they are set on maintaining their position regardless of what is presented to them. The opinion that "topic is notable on its own" and "notable topic" is not well substantiated in sources, in my opinion. I don't believe the article can be easily contextualized without relying on tremendous overlap of material in the main article. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:18, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I’m pretty confident, despite the overlap, that there’s a fundamental difference in context between a potential superpower and an actual one that necessitates individual coverage. In the same way, we wouldn’t merge Developing world into Developed world because the latter’s what they’re ultimately aiming for.
Comment Given that both articles (partially) contradict each other and both are disputed, it would be best to wait. Meanwhile, please continue to assume good faith. Thanks. 16dvnk (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry if I caused confusion. That was a general comment given the nature of the dispute, and I do not want to direct that to anyone. Thanks. 16dvnk (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
developing superpowers is not a page that we have. We have potential superpower, which I believe is an error, not a potential error. Potential superpower generally just means it might be one now, or in the future. Superpower is a poorly defined term, potential superpower is (with a few exceptions) used for speculation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 08:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Dude…I’m completely aware that developing superpowers is not a page that we have. It was a rhetorical device. I’m not completely blind to the point you’re making. I get it, I really do. Nevertheless, everything I’ve raised above is an attempt to explain to you why I think you’re wrong. You haven’t done anything to actually grapple with those arguments, in favor of simply reasserting your own position / line of reasoning, repeatedly. Unless you can fundamentally address the core of the argument I’ve presented, you’re not going to change my mind.
Your argument I’m pretty confident, despite the overlap, that there’s a fundamental difference in context between a potential superpower and an actual one that necessitates individual coverage. Do you have a source, ideally several sources, that makes this distinction. Most of the potential superpower article relies on articles that are discussing superpowers in general. The general use in most is something like "the European Union might potentially be a superpower, here is why I think it is/is not." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:30, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. China, India, the EU, and Russia are already covered in both articles. I see nothing wrong with adding Brazil and Japan to the target. Based on a Google Scholar search, a lot of coverage of the subject is about debating whether China is a superpower, which is obviously relevant to the proposed target. If sources treat both subjects together, we should treat them together as well. A lack of stability, which is advanced as an argument against merging, is another reason to merge, because centralizing discussion can sometimes lead to a resolution. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm assuming the implied merge target is Superpower, but when you propose a merge without spelling out the target, you risk having your !vote ignored by a closer who isn't fond of second-guessing. Please revise your !vote accordingly. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 17:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Do not merge for the time being. (This is a revision/clarification following the relisting, although I find it obvious that we are talking about merging Potential superpower into Superpower.)
While it is true that materials are duplicated and disputed, and there are inconsistencies across both pages, I believe they should be treated as separate problems. We have multiple solutions:
Merge the articles as suggested
Move duplicated materials on some countries from Superpower to Potential superpower
Have a concentrated discussion thread on one of the pages
For me, the main criteria for keeping this page is whether the topic is notable enough, and a quick search shows the term is used by many authors.
I'm not convinced merging should be seen as a dispute resolution mechanism. The idea that we merge them, have a discussion to hash out the difference, and then probably spin off the article again on notability grounds sounds needlessly painful to me.
There are numerous active disputes in the main page. Forcing a merge now will just be more chaos. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 05:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Strong keep. I oppose the merge—there is no valid reason to delete or merge this article. "Potential superpower" and "superpower" are distinct concepts, with the former essentially functioning as a sub-article of the main topic. Wikipedia guidelines do not forbid creating related sub-articles or spin-offs. A similar case can be seen with articles like Allies of World War II and World War II by country, both of which significantly overlap in content with World War II, yet that does not prevent them from existing as separate sub-articles. Most importantly, 'potential superpower' and 'superpower' are entirely distinct concepts—they don't even overlap. If a country is identified as a potential superpower, it inherently implies that it is not yet recognized as an actual superpower. Furthermore, the current Potential superpower article contains over a hundred cited references, demonstrating that it is a well-sourced topic with ample coverage. There is absolutely no justification to delete or merge it with any other page.
Comment: I've seen some indication that they might be distinct concepts, however most sources used do not actually clarify on that distinction. Do you have sources that clearly and unambiguously define them separately? From what I can see, most of the sources for "potential superpower" overlap with "superpower." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
You need to prove that these two are the same concept before considering deletion. As things stand, no one would consider 'potential superpower' and 'superpower' to be the same concept. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Proving a negative is difficult to impossible, the burden is on proving they are separate topics. Just looking at the articles lead, four of the first six sources are available online. Searching the text, none use the word "potential" at all. I haven't checked the sources that aren't available digitally. Proving that "potential superpower" is a verifiable separate concept requiring it's own page is a burden for the people who want to keep them separate, because finding a few sources for that is easier then going through every source in existence. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
First, since you are the one proposing the merge or deletion, the burden of proof is on you to provide reliable sources demonstrating that 'potential superpower' and 'superpower' are identical concepts.Don't just tell me this is impossible. Since you are the one proposing the deletion, you should provide the evidence to support it. Then, no one considers a 'potential superpower' and a 'superpower' to be the same concept—if an country is a 'potential superpower,' by definition, this country is not currently a superpower. Finally, there are no sources suggesting that 'Allies of World War II' does not fall under the scope of the main 'World War II' article—by your logic, are you going to propose deleting the 'Allies of World War II' article as well? If you can manage to get the 'Allies of World War II' article merge with World War II, maybe then I'll support your proposal to merge this one YuelinLee1959 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The issue is that skimming the sources used in potential superpower, it does not look like there are many that actually discuss the term as a separate concept. We have sources that use the term "candidates for superpowerhood," but it would be silly to make a page for that. If it is not a separate concept, there aren't going to be detailed sources to demonstrate that. There is some content that could be included, but it would amount to about one paragraph, does not currently exist on the superpower page, and could fit very well on the main page. If potential superpower is verifiably a separate concept that requires a stand alone page, then demonstrating that should be fairly easy. Certainly easier then checking every source to see that it doesn't. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Superpower, as it is a primary subject, unless it can be argued that the article is a subarticle of the primary subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Not sure if I understand you well. How is this article not a subarticle of the target article? Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 02:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 00:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Per Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, the burden to demonstrate this term needs a separate stand alone article is on anyone voting keep. The term "superpower" is poorly defined, "potential superpower" is even more poorly defined. Skimming the first few sources cited in the article, I did not find the term "potential superpower" used. Where it is used in the literature, it looks to me like it is as a qualifier or a hedge when an author is speculating. Examples might look something like "___ could potentially be a superpower if you consider _____" OR "____ could potentially be a superpower in the near future if ______." There is some loose content that could be included, and there are some sources that discuss this a bit (they are not included in the article at the moment), but it would amount to a paragraph, would not be a separate concept, and could fit well within the main article. If you want to vote "keep," please provide sources demonstrating that it is a clearly defined separate topic, and not a loosely used term to qualify speculation about entities geopolitical power. If the topic is notable and verifiably a completely separate concept, then that should be easy. As it is, potential superpower is essentially a WP:POVFORK, and there is hardly enough unique material between both pages to make one solid article.
Keep - I see that the article could be included in 2026 French fuel protests, 2026 French student protests, and 2026 European unrest. However I do think this is a very notable event and that it would be not be unuseful for a more detailed article about the riots as it is a major development that the articles speak of as if it were a distinct event. That day was uniquely destructive with many more lootings, over 800,000 participants, thousands of people arrested and injured, and historic monuments including the Monument to the Republic and Hôtel de Ville of Limoges getting attacked. It also notes a big shift in the French government's approach to the protests, with Macron condemning the protests and calling for a crackdown because of it. I'd give it a bit of time. OrdinariusFingius (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I also see that the frwiki already has a substantial page about the happenings across the entire country. A comprehensive nationwide focus which would otherwise be too big for the other articles would perfectly fit for this OrdinariusFingius (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. Maybe the lead of 2026 European unrest should mention 17 October and explain its importance to the subject. MrCryptoNerd (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Support A lot of media coverage I see, which usually makes a topic qualified for a having an article. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Major outlets cover 17 October as a distinct event like Reuters, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and France 24. XINLU168 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and comment (per logic of @OrdinariusFingius) with additional comment;
I would support merger to 2026 French student protests or, if it is merged with 2026 French fuel protests, to the resulting article. These riots are a closer subset of the French protests than the broader multinational unrest. It makes no sense to merge this whole thing into an article covering something international. However, were that question before us a mention could be made in some manner akin to what @MrCryptoNerd proposed. Finfixer (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment:Skimel has moved the page (in violation of WP:EDITAFD). The XFDcloser script likely won't work correctly, the closer should double check the diffs. FaviFake (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello @FaviFake, I'm sorry for the disruption, I renamed it in good faith and was not aware of theses guidelines. Skimel (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@Skimel Don't worry! You can help by changing every instance of the old article on this discussion into the new name (except in other's comments). This should make XFDcloser work correctly. FaviFake (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. This is not notable enough to satisfy WP:NEVENTFaviFake (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Detail, Italian and Belgian riots. These should be merged to 2026 European unrest, 2026 Italian unrest, because (taking in good faith that what has been added to the article represents a more or less complete overview of each subject) they satisfy:
WP:MERGENOT: topic fails WP:NEVENT[1] and does not seem notable for other reasons.
WP:MERGECON: currently just drops the reader into the riots without explanation of their backgrounds; any explanation would simply run into WP:OVERLAP of the subjects elsewhere without much else new to say.
WP:SHORTTEXT: entries, especially on Italy, are tiny, and merge would not cause much sub-topic overwhelm; at risk of WP:CRYSTALBALL, subjects, especially of Italy section, seem to be routine part of civil unrest without independent notability[1], and so are unlikely to be expanded on unless part of what would merit a new article setup.
WP:OVERLAP: Subject is presented as another day in a multi-day event covered at the target.
There is currently no article 2026 Belgian unrest to perform the merge to, even though this would be better for the Belgian material.
Detail, French riots. These should not be merged (yet) because:
WP:MERGENOT: topic arguably passes WP:NEVENT because they involve a large scale of rioters and the destruction of historic buildings (WP:EFFECT); have significant WP:COVERAGE; and elicited direct international response (WP:GEOSCOPE).
WP:MERGECON: either of the three merge targets could probably provide context, but the national level concerns of this subject probably mean that France-specific targets would be best-suited to introducing the relevant actors and their specific concerns.
WP:SHORTTEXT: merging these materials with 2026 European unrest#France would probably double the size of that section to contain the contents of one day's events; and it is entirely possible (at risk of violating WP:CRYSTALBALL) that this material could still be expanded upon.
WP:OVERLAP: further context relating to the French riots would probably have to go into detail about the French political actors as explained in WP:MERGECON, making overlap with the France-specific articles likely to become the most substantive.
Procedure: as I've argued, I think that a France-related article is a better as a target; but neither is currently eligible due to an active merge discussion between 2026 French student protests and 2026 French fuel protests; and we do not have material demonstrating the riots are "really" part of one or the other to justify a specific merge target.
[1]: Belgium being the more substantial of the two with 195 arrests claimed in article; however, Italy with "50 demonstrators" being unruly and stones thrown at police/barricades attacked seems to obviously fail WP:NEVENT for now, due to no WP:LASTING effect (remember: we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL), limited WP:GEOSCOPE unless tied to something else, pitiful WP:DEPTH, and no way to verify WP:PERSISTENCE as of yet, but no way to be confident in it either, given it's a single day's events involving just 50 people and a Milanese shopping arcade, and some people throwing stones in another city. Remember, WP:NOTNEWS. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Support merge This is a synthesis of separate protest events that happened to be on the same day. The different countries' events should be covered in their respective articles, no need for this duplicative split page. Reywas92Talk 02:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
keep I'd believe it to be a notable enough singular riot since 500000 took part in it, protestors and rioters included, aswell as deaths occuring. Tomas Guus (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment If it is kept, a choice must be made: either it's about the whole protest (as it was the case at some point), and you then can mention the 500000 or 800000 protestors, or the article is strictly about the riots, and then you need to find other figures. Some préfectures gave estimates of rioters (example: 200 rioters («casseurs») for 1500 protestors in Valence), but I'm not aware of any national estimates. Making the article about the riots also raises the question of what happens to the parts about the peaceful protests and the political message they were carrying, which despite what the regime says, are substential. — Maxlath (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Support merge - along with fuel protests into 2026 French student protests and change the name to something more generic. Comment - This article was renamed "protests" yesterday even though I think the reason it was split out was to segregate the riots from the protests. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I think re-renaming it to riots was a mistake, see my comment above, and in the talk page — Maxlath (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep It is substantial enough to have its own article. Merging it would cause confusion and cluttering. Rager7 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Support, per above and per the fact that the article in its current form is a WP:COATRACK that seeks to look like something by discussing tangential subjects like the situation in Albania or Italy tho it has nothing to do with the 17th of October specifically. Milk'n'Thyme 05:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep as WP:PAGEDECIDE indicates that since the nature of coverage and the fundamental character of the event has changed considerably since these riots started, it would seriously disrupt the attempt to establish a central context for the broader protest movement were it to be moved to the destination article. This is even more pertinent given the fact that the riots have continued past the 17th, meaning that we've seen a fundamental rupture in the character of events on the ground that would warrant independent discussion. I don't disagree that it should be discussed at the target, and link back to it for the same reasons, but don't see there being much benefit to characterizing the protests in their entirety as something that they effectively weren't up until the 17th.
My comments at the merge discussion for the fuel protests have already touched on the fact that, at the very least, one major platform has indicated that those who took part in the riots were broadly not operating under the same banner (or, at the very least, with the same intentions) as the wider protest movement, thus it would be an NPOV violation to attempt to implicitly or explicitly equate the two as stemming from the same source (particularly given the fact that certain elements of the French government and right-wing have been doing exactly that).
I think it would make more sense to move this title to October 2026 French riots or similar, since I suspect they won't be slowing down for at least the immediate future. Even if they do, there's been enough of an event made out of them that they warrant standalone inclusion.
The Yellow vests are planning more demonstrations on 24 October so this may be necessary OrdinariusFingius (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Just to clarify my opposition is principally to a merge to 2026 French student protests. I'm more ambiguous as relates to the European unrest proposal, but still think it warrants standalone inclusion.
Keep. October 17 happened in France, not in Albania. The date is even becoming an expression of its own by the French media, the population, because the level of violence was absolutely unprecedented. These French riots had been featured internationally (even by the NY Post) as such, not as an Albanian or European movement, but as a French movement. We can even add French in the title to make it more clear. --Deansfa (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Re, use of term: common use of a term does not necessarily merit an article for the events described by that term. See WP:NEOLOGISM; WP:NOTDICTIONARY. A more substantive argument on term use would be appreciated.
Re, international coverage: assuming this is an argument for WP:NOTABILITY, please review reasons for merging at WP:MERGEREASON, and explain why other factors do not override independent notability of the topic. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Merge The protests/riots have gone well beyond 17 October, so calling it 2026 European unrest is much more appropriate. However, perhaps a slight name change to 2026 European protests and riots? “Unrest” seems very vague and ambiguous. BootsED (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Merge The event is no longer contained to 17 October and is clearly having effect on the whole region.
AP: From France to Albania, how social unrest is fueling protests across Europe
Comment There's a fourth one of these discussions (that I haven't gotten involved in yet) going on somewhere around these articles and I can't remember what it was. Any assistance is appreciated.
Keep: I think that a distinction should be drawn between violent and non-violent actions with the article on riots focusing on the violent and illegal aspects of these events and the equivalent article on unrest having a scope which encloses both the peaceful and political contexts and the violent and illegal aspects of the unrest. Arcchie (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and move to "17 October protests and riots", or something to that effect. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
There's no point in keeping this article if you want to include "protests" here. — Raihanur(talk) 11:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep -- with single-day damages estimated at over a billion euros, there is little argument to be had about notability. This entry will evolve over time once the government's reaction (curfews, banning demonstrations) proves to have been successful or not in keeping the peace. For the time being, the entry should remain here, or be more aptly named October 17 French riots. I would move the page myself right now, except that this AfD makes that impossible (bureaucratic policy).. Encourage a snow close to permit that improvement. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 14:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge, with conditions - As I noted in my edits, the current article has severe issues of factual accuracy, especially regarding France, going as far as contradicting itself in the infobox without any cited sources, citing twice the numbers cited elsewhere in the article.
An increased amount of scrutiny will be given to the evidence if we decide to bring the contents of this article to a larger article with a larger pool of collaborators, helping with the process of verification.
Merging the contents of this article with articles covering the nonviolent side of the protests will lead to more balanced view of the situation, than keeping the article about the protests and the article riots separate; there is significant redundant information between the two, so much so that I believe simply putting information unique to this article under the information from articles about the broader protests would be more informative and complete.
However, I only support this merge should the contents of this article be included as a section of a larger article about the protests as a whole, considering that they 1. Emerged from within the context of the protests, therefore understanding the protests and the background is necessary to understanding the protests and 2. Considering the reported millions of protesters throughout Europe, focusing an article entirely on the reported thousands of rioters would be WP:UNDUE~2026-57490-42 (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 00:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the subject passes notability criteria. There are a good number of sources cited, but they are all either primary/promotional, or about radio stations/programs and not significant coverage about the person. There is also suspected COI/UPE. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 05:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to emphasize that this article is legitimate and the biography correct. The references are correct and the sources and text reviewed by the subject to confirm accuracy. The sources are, for the most part, primary and in line with media-format coverage. They also comply with reliability and are industry based. I would also like to clarify for the record that there is zero COI and absolutely no payment has been received for publishing this article. JimD75 (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Primary sources can't be used to show notability. The rest aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The query I'd had was that there are a number of other personalities with similar histories, coverage and references that, at worst, require more citation. I modelled the format on a couple, including the one referenced in the text. On that basis, I can only take the principal issue as being notability. JimD75 (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Local media personality, with a lack of coverage. This was the only source I could find , we've not established the reliability of The Toronto Sun; they're certainly biased in their reporting, but I don't think they've ever published false information. It's the more "working man" version of the National Post, published by the same outfit. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - this is the second time this month that I've encountered an article nominated for deletion for which I don't see anything wrong with it. Yes, he's been a local DJ, but in three different countries. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think having non-notable roles in 3 countries makes it notable. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 02:35, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - for the same reasons as outlined by Bearian. Rillington (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
1)- radio-uk.co.uk, and there is zero relevance to the subject but "pure" advertising. It is at least backed up by the,
2)- Toronto Sun, so we can know he is happy ("I’ve never been happier than now.") with his new job.
3)- The Sunday Post is about three people joining a radio station that, again, is great resume stuff with "Harper will present afternoons, following a lively career in radio and presenting, including time at Beat 106, Real Radio and latterly, Heart. With highlights including DJing for Robbie Williams, he’ll provide the soundtrack to the working day with good chat and a wide mix of high energy tracks". This certainly includes puffery wording.
4)- Next, I picked youtube. WHAT THE ....! It is a credit list for "Project Gotham Racing 2".
Note: Read the comments by JimD75, The references are correct and the sources and text reviewed by the subject to confirm accuracy. That is NOT the intended direction of Wikipedia. Collaboration with the subject of an article can, and surely does, introduce elements of advocacy and COI. I have stopped there (tired), so any supporters of resumes on Wikipedia can look at the other 9 sources, to try to affirm notability with Multiple, non-passing mention, reliable and independent sources acceptable for a WP:BLP. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Accurate sources are the bare minimum, but the subject still needs to be notable. Please don't use sources that lie or spread fake information... Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above. I agree that there is only one acceptable source, Toronto Sun. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 00:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria. 🄻os🄰 19:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete can't find anything on Google or other language Wikipedias except for articles from Pulse NigeriaAlphaBetaDeltaLambda(αβδλ) 20:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Aside the source here, Africa TV & Film Magazine says it won the Nigeria Thema Award and that it was already popular. Please, be aware that most Nigerian newspapers do not have an online archive for articles written before 2015 and downwards. So, finding sources for a 2000 film is a really hard thing to do. See: Africa Film & TV Magazine, Issues 28-34 - Page 16 for the coverage about the film. I'll look for more sources now. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:19, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, the basis of my argument lies on WP:NFIC#1: The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims... Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Update: I saw sources but there are just passing mentions: "The popular epic video films of the late 1990s and 2000s include: Vuga (2000)", or, "In an earlier work which I carried out on Nollywood, I had stated that the cycle of epics started with: Vuga (Simi Opeolu, 2000),", so, I got distracted and tired along the way. The other sources was about it winning the Thema Award organised by the now-defunct Fame and its screening in Ghana and US in the CinemAFRICA programme in 2005. So, this could be a head-start who wishes to make some digging. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:00, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
weak keep: Some critical mention of the film , the award won also helps. I think we have just enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
With respect, I'd describe that as a passing mention. 🄻os🄰 15:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep per arugments made by Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia and Oaktree b. Despite the lack of significant coverage, it appears that the film has some sort of relevance to Nigerian cinema and has been labeled a "classic". Versace1608Wanna Talk? 22:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 00:27, 28 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.
Comment: I would prefer a merger here. What do New Zealand editors think would be a good target? Bearian (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Five-a-side football § Merger proposal
Blocked sockpuppet of Loewstisch, see investigation.