Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/YWP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< March 01	March 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The Loft (SiriusXM)

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Prod was declined, as this page and other SiriusXM channels were part of a 65-article AfD nom in 2014 that was withdrawn on since-repealed SNG guidance. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gifthealth

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG at present and no indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability based upon WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Local vendor, promo page, not notable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That's incredibly promotional content. rfqii^talk 00:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Partlow

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC, a search doesn't turn up verifiable WP:SIGCOV that would improve the article. The article discusses a previous business career that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources currently cited are user created content or links to apple music. If kept I think the article should be stubified. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Music. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by PR professional with WP:COI (see here), now banned. Author also used socks to remove COI tag multiple times. If someone wants to take a swing at stubifying, have at it, but likely needs WP:TNT. WidgetKid ^Converse 22:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Not notable Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Jackel

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

Crushingly massive failure of WP:SPORTCRIT, a guy who played 5 football matches in his life in Brazilian state leagues. Cited coverage is either not focused on him, short or routine announcements, at any rate not independent and significant in-depth coverage, leading to GNG failure. Geschichte (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Pele he is not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Kiper

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

Very troubled by the notability of this actress / model / Survivor contestant. Searched exhaustively for her notability as an actress. All I can find are Business Wire (wire agency of press releases), Kotaku (pre-2023) (reliability questionable per WP:RSP#Kotaku (pre-2023)), and brief references of her past appearances (as if a source were resume- or profile-like, IMO). Furthermore, her roles seem very minor or less impactful (despite seeming major).

I even tried finding reliable secondary sources verifying the notability of her Heroes vs. Villains gameplay. I can see them saying that she was the first contestant eliminated. Furthermore, how she was eliminated can be very subject to the WP:BLP policy itself, especially when using her interviews properly.

Overall, this person may fail all criteria of WP:GNG, and she may have lacked sufficient coverage to meet WP:SUSTAINED. Since she fails WP:NBASIC, WP:BIOSPECIAL should apply, regardless of her compliance with WP:NACTRESS.

Per WP:BIO1E or WP:PAGEDECIDE (if WP:BLP1E is inapplicable), IMO, the article should be redirected to Survivor: Gabon (preferably) or List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (alternatively). Redirecting her to Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains wouldn't be appropriate, especially since she was the first one out that season and was portrayed somewhat negatively there. George Ho (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, Television, Video games, and Florida. George Ho (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, interviews are mostly primary sources since she herself was an interviewee in them, and using them as indicators of notability wouldn't be wise, IMO (more at essay WP:Interviews#Notability). George Ho (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ondessonk

AfDs for this article:

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

Ref-bombed, but with no genuine signs of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Ref bombed is the right characterization. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic COVID-19

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

Delete Endemic COVID-19. This article is a WP:POVFORK of the main COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic articles. Whether COVID-19 is endemic is a subject of ongoing scientific debate, not a settled separate topic warranting a standalone article.

By creating a page titled "Endemic COVID-19", the article inherently violates WP:NPOV by presenting a contested hypothesis as a distinct reality. The content relies on WP:SYNTH, combining definitions and opinion pieces to advance a narrative that contradicts major health organizations (like the WHO, which still classifies it as a pandemic). Relevant information about the transition to endemicity belongs in the "Epidemiology" section of the main article, not here.

Furthermore, the article creates a false dichotomy and violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX by potentially pushing a specific narrative regarding public health policy. Worstbull (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, COVID-19, and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a content fork of other COVID-19 pages. Guz13 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't looked in on this article for several months, and it has been a target of POV pushers in the past. But the subject clearly qualifies for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article, or "is notable", to use our wiki-jargon. If there are problems with the content, then Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and there are folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, and (if relevant) the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard who could help out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A “fork” occurs when a topic (in this case, the current status of COVID-19) is so controversial that one side attempts to split off its own reality in order to avoid criticism in the main article.

Logic: If “endemic” is only a stage of COVID-19, it belongs in the article “COVID-19 pandemic” (e.g., under “Future Scenarios” or ‘Transition’). Having a separate article “Endemic COVID-19” already suggests through its title that this object exists. This is a classic violation of neutrality through structure. This is a clear and typical WP:POVFORK violation. Worstbull (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article about a concept suggests that the concept exists, but not that the concept is current reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the issue of whether COVID-19 is endemic is contested, the article should be rewritten, not deleted. As mentioned above, there are many papers about this, so the GNG is satisfied. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Framing COVID-19 as "endemic" is nonsensical. You wouldn't create an article "Human landed on Pluto" just to explain that this is a hoax. The article is unscientific in by itself. Plus the original version (much of which still seems to exist today) was written in its entirety with AI. Worstbull (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do have articles on notable hypothetical events, like Colonization of Mars. I see no evidence the original version was written by AI; it is from June 2022, before ChatGPT's release. ZeroGPT (mentioned below) is not trustworthy. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GPT-3 was released in June 2020, and accesible via API since 2021. And widely known. Especially since it authored the famous Guardian article in 2020. So that's no proof. Worstbull (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because AfD is not cleanup, and nom believes this article was created by an AI !!! - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 23:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about AI in the nomination statement. Did OP mention this somewhere else? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Read this, or at least the first paragraph. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 09:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out, yes according to https://www.zerogpt.com/ the original version 1095323150 (+15,928!) is entirely AI-generated (copypasted the raw source), the only exception are four quotes and Wiki-syntax headlines. Worstbull (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, it says 85% AI generated for me. It also tell us that the current text is 58% AI generated. Gosh. Guess what, it also tells me that the current text of COVID-19 pandemic is also 85% AI generated - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 08:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You only checked the first 15.000 characters of the COVID-19 pandemic article (ZeroGPT only allows 15.000 characters for free users). Which is an expected result because of the Wiki-formatting. I wrote that it's entirely AI-generated with the exception of four quotes and Wiki-syntax headlines.

This is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the fact, that the title of the article itself is not neutral. It anticipates the outcome of the scientific debate. Hence it violates WP:NPOV.

If “endemic” is only one stage of COVID-19, it belongs in the article “COVID-19 pandemic” (e.g., under “Future Scenarios” or ‘Transition’). Having a separate article “Endemic COVID-19” already suggests through its title that this object exists. This is a classic violation of neutrality through structure. WP:POVFORK Worstbull (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Worstbull, the Who Wrote That? tool indicates that I wrote half the article and that @Crossroads wrote a quarter of it. You may now withdraw and apologize for your insulting claim that we violated community standards in writing the article. I have never used AI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SmolBrane wrote the first original version that I specifically mentioned and was talking about, mind reading again what I wrote exactly, before attacking me? Worstbull (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SmolBrane wrote the first version of this article in June 2022. ChatGPT was released to the general public on November 30, 2022 – five months later. Do you have any explanation for how they could have used non-existent software to write this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a contentious article and an article that has had problems, but AfD is not clean-up. There are sufficient, high-quality citations discussing the transition to endemic status, and what COVID possibly being endemic means. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear WP:POVFORK. If it is an endemic disease that fact could easily be covered in the main article. It doesn't make sense to have a separate page.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COVID-19 pandemic covers information here less speculatively than this article. Does not need a standalone WP:OR article. _signed,Kvinnen (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article clearly violates NPOV, is a clear POV fork, and violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The first sentence in the lede itself is ridiculous. At best, we can have a section in the Covid article about Covid's transition to an endemic disease -- still a contentious claim. This is also way too much undue weight. Wikipedia is about reporting on what reliable sources say -- it's not a library for junk science. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant points into the main article. Most of these sources discuss endemic disease or Covid, but not both. Of the ones that do, UCLA Health does not have a named author or a source for why Covid is no longer a pandemic. J Steere-Williams explicitly notes this should not be considered endemic yet: "But reframing COVID-19 as an endemic disease right now is a premature notion at best, representing more of what we want COVID-19 to become than the epidemiological reality we face today." Rustom and Halloran imply they think the disease will be endemic soon: "We need to address a number of questions in order to understand how vaccination can optimally facilitate the transition of SARS-CoV-2 to endemicity." (Emphasis mine.)
@Worstbull, I would appreciate clarification on where I can find the WHO's statement that Covid has not been downgraded. This Covid-19 situations page calls it a pandemic, uses present tense, but doesn't have a "last updated" date. For comparison, their page on the H1N1 outbreak in 2009 uses past tense. Dr. Mark Katz in this WHO article from December 30, 2025 states: "Our studies, using data from the EuroSAVE network, highlight that, while COVID-19 is not leading to the widespread disease we saw during the pandemic, it has still been causing a considerable number of hospitalizations and deaths." (Emphasis mine.) Past tense implies it shouldn't be considered a pandemic, but the article never uses the word endemic.

Appologies for potential formatting issues. I'm trying to stop my comment from being a wall of text. SenshiSun (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO has officially declined to be the arbiter of when something is a pandemic and when it's not, so I don't think we're going to find any clear or consistent statements from them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per 4meter4. Very dated information, and does note appear likely that it was more than WP:NOTNEWS violating even in its day. At this point, possible WP:POVFORK concerns are valid, but WP:TNT is best for an article like this when we know no new coverage should be coming out for this subject at this point too. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic clearly meets WP:GNG. Deletion is not cleanup; any problems can be handled through editing and discussion, as with all articles. This article is not a fork of, and cannot be merged with, COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic, as these are both already quite large and cannot fit more content on this topic. The OP's premise that the title is an NPOV violation is incorrect; even if we grant that endemic COVID is yet hypothetical (which they acknowledge is a point of debate), Wikipedia has articles on notable hypothetical events, such as Colonization of Mars. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've just reverted the undiscussed and problematic changes to the lead that were made two months ago. @Guz13, 4meter4, Kvinnen, AnonymousScholar49, Iljhgtn, please have a look again. This is supposed to be a proper Wikipedia:Summary style subtopic of COVID-19 pandemic (an article that is already WP:TOOLONG). Anyone else: If you've got a source to update the {{as of|2024}} in the lead, that would be helpful. The slightly dated sources are going to attract efforts to "update" the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTSOAPBOX are still unresolved, they can only be resolved by deleting the article, and leave the topic to the existing COVID-19 articles. Worstbull (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a POVFORK ("another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view"). It is a subtopic of the sort encouraged by Wikipedia:Summary style.

It no longer has any NPOV problems AFAICT, but even if it did, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and NPOV problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and not reasons for deletion.

There is no SYNTH violation. Most of the sources (except some of those used to explain the concept of endemic disease) are primarily about whether COVID-19 is an endemic disease, or what that would look like if/when that happened.

There are no SOAPBOX problems. This is not an advocacy piece; it is intended to be purely educational. For example, it educates readers that "endemic" is not a fancy way to spell "mild disease" (a common misconception, according to sources cited in the article).
WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I repeat myself: This article is a WP:POVFORK of the main COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic articles. Whether COVID-19 is endemic is a subject of ongoing scientific debate, not a settled separate topic warranting a standalone article.

By creating a page titled "Endemic COVID-19", the article inherently violates WP:NPOV by presenting a contested hypothesis as a distinct reality. The content relies on WP:SYNTH, combining definitions and opinion pieces to advance a narrative that contradicts major health organizations (like the WHO, which still classifies it as a pandemic). Relevant information about the transition to endemicity belongs in the "Epidemiology" section of the main article, not here.

Furthermore, the article creates a false dichotomy and violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX by potentially pushing a specific narrative regarding public health policy.

And the article's sole reason for existence is to push a false narrative. "Endemic" has a strict, scientific meaning, that is a disease that is local to a specific area and stable (R~1). A pandemic like COVID with multiple global intensive waves every year is very far from becoming endemic. A small note about this ongoing debate in the main COVID-19 articles is fully sufficient. Worstbull (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you seem to be operating from complete information. Endemic doesn't actually have "a strict, scientific meaning"; it unfortunately has multiple meanings, some of which are strict, and all of which use different metrics and/or different cutoff values.

Endemic steady state has a single definition, but different definitions of endemic have different uses for that formula. For example, while it's widely agreed that influenza can become a pandemic, it's not widely agreed whether influenza, in its more typical years, is properly classified as a seasonal disease (when the endemic steady state does not equal 1 in any given short time period), an endemic disease, or both. As a result of differing definitions of endemic, we have some authorities saying "Influenza is endemic – see, averaged over the course of a whole year, the amount is predictable" and other authorities saying "Influenza is obviously not endemic – see, R₀ × S was 1.5 in January and 0.7 in June".

As for your other claims, COVID-19 pandemic#Transition to later phases says the same thing as Endemic COVID-19 – some of it almost word-for-word – so it can't be a POVFORK. A POVFORK would mean that the main article says X, and the POVFORK says Y or not-X. That's not happening here; therefore it's not a POVFORK.

I wonder what "narrative" you think the Endemic COVID-19 article is pushing. The first sentence says There is disagreement as to whether COVID-19 has become an endemic disease or should still be considered a pandemic. Do you think that's a false narrative? Do you have sources that say there is no disagreement about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
keep --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to COVID-19. Yes, this is definitely a fork of COVID-19. Yes, the disease is currently endemic, just as many other diseases. But this is not a reason to create two pages for every disease. And if there is still debate about it being endemic or not (it is apparently endemic), the debate still can be placed to the main page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes, do you have MEDRS sources to support the claim that COVID-19 is currently endemic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure [1], and it was already in 2023. But my point was different: this issue belongs to main page about COVID, regardless of the current status, endemic or or not. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This reads more like an opinion piece, and it's obviously discussing the status. The WHO still conciders COVID-19 as pandemic. You are probably confusing "epidemic" and "endemic". The latter, per CDC definition, is a disease that is local to a specific geographic area, and relatively stable. Both is definitely not true for SARS-COV-2 which still globally hits in multiple, unpredictable waves per year, with new variants emerging all the time. It cannot come in multiple global epidemic waves per year and at the same time be endemic (i.e. native to a specific region and relatively stable, occurring predictably in a defined region and population; no the "whole world" is not meeting the definition of "within a geographic area", this term is used to distinguish it from epidemic/pandemic behaviour.). Worstbull (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, your link does not say WHO still consider it to be a pandemic. This is merely a post about the pandemic. To the contrary, The WHO has Declared COVID-19 is No Longer a Pandemic-Level Threat in 2024. But again, regardless to the status, the content should be merged to the main page I think. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what some authors paraphrased WHO as, when they declared the global emergency to be over. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a terminology issue. An endemic disease is not necessarily localized to a narrow geographic area. For example, the common cold, influenza, and chickenpox are considered endemic across many global regions because they circulate at a predictable baseline level year-round or seasonally. This is not endemic species. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had considered creating Endemic COVID-19 by country some time ago, which would satisfy the geographic objections of the filer and would allow the historical relevant information (the original structure and content) to be split. Separating the definition(what it is) from the observation(where it is endemic). There is a dearth of wiki content regarding the conclusion of the pandemic, and a lack of custodians. A source for consideration:

“SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic within the human population and joins the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1, and alphacoronaviruses NL63 and 229E, as the 5th endemic human coronavirus.” Nature.com

-SmolBrane (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is probably a consensus right now. But keep in mind that we have already Category:COVID-19 pandemic templates by country and others. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the category templates, but basically Template:COVID-19 endemicity by country in the Category:COVID-19 pandemic templates, similar to Template:COVID-19 testing by country.

The extra fun part is that the Nature source doesn't describe endemic COVID as a geographical phenomena(human population is not a place). SmolBrane (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see consensus on either the POVFORK argument or the size/scope argument. Please note that a theory of endemic Covid need not represent a consensus view to have a standalone article; we are here to judge notability alone, and a debate may be notable, though often indicated in the title. Please also note that whether or not we merge hinges on the quantum of material, not just the relatedness of the topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current state of the article is good enough to preclude a TNT deletion, thanks to WAID among others. I think there might be a small overcorrection towards saying there is a debate on this, with only the long COVID literature sort of holding out saying it might still be a pandemic / using present tense. However, when cleaning up the COVID-19 pandemic article, I noticed a scarcity of recent sources on this question. There are a good number of 2021-2023 sources, enough to comfortably meet the notability threshold. The article goes in a good amount of detail about what endemic means, what other disease pathways are, and this information would bloat the main article if we were to merge. As an aside, people here might be interested in the merge discussion at Talk:COVID-19 season (a cut-and-paste move from COVID-19 seasonality). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Flora, West Virginia

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

Does not meet WP:NPLACE criteria for notability - sourced solely from GNIS. Previously deleted as an expired PROD. netstars22 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: West Virginia and North America. netstars22 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sorry, didnt see that, I saw that it was the only unincorporated community in its county to not be linked or redlinked and I thought that it was just missed, my bad! Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found except trivial listings in shipping guides from the late 19th/early 20th century. Search is heavily contaminated with publications about native plants, so if anything is found I can reconsider. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Where? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne bus route 241

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is about a run of the mill bus route. Of the 28 cites, 17 are timetables for it or other bus and tram routes that it intersects with. Of the remaining 11, three are about two unrelated routes that carried the same number decades previously, neither of which was notable. The rest are mainly government departmental announcements, timetable amendments and mirrors of them on other websites. Neathhuves (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete majority of sources are primary and routine. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill bus route, including its predecessors, with sources mostly primary sources. Excessive information about transfers to other services along it also violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Dobler Effect

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

Appears to fail WP:NMG. Very little sustained coverage and the article seems promotional in nature, with off-topic tangents about other related musicians. I removed what appeared to be a fake discography entry and there may be others, or at the very least ones that are virtually impossible to verify (and thus would fail notability rules). Engineeringest (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Enso Group

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

Sources are mostly Wire/Press releases. Generic bylines, promotional tones and announcement type text suggests that the sources are not independent and significant. Failing Wp:NORG. Zuck28 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, COVID-19, India, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Canada. Zuck28 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources present in the article show significant coverage.ShawMindMiner (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no significant citations matching WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The article relies on a single primary source, and the media make only brief mentions of the company's NASA contract. Pololo1320 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't give a shit if the page stays or not, after a previous affiliated deletion, this debate should be kept short or else I will appeal for Wikipedia to not put up Enso Group. I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk • contribs)

Vote struck per admission of COI and socking. Don't do that. Nathannah • 📮 00:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is incredibly poor in a 'short attention span' sense where neither of its component companies are described well in a natural flow, and doesn't describe any of what the company does at all outside press release hits; we need a lot more neutral writing to consider a keep. Nathannah • 📮 00:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Era of Polycrisis

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

This is a personal essay, expressing a point of view, not an impartial account of objective facts. JBW (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. JBW (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have given sources in talk page. A$ianeditorz (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay without a coherent encyclopedic topic. There is a desire to argue that a certain "era" is the topic, and the author of this article-space essay contends that the start of this era might have been in 2019 or 2020, but the available reliable sources do not bear this out. There's more about it on the talk page. The increase in popularity of the term polycrisis occurred in the 2010s. The term was first coined in 1993. The topic of polycrisis is covered in polycrisis.—Alalch E. 22:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have given more sources on talk page look at them too. It's not about when term was invented it's about when it befits A$ianeditorz (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the other sources too, and they do not demonstrate anything contradicting the deletion nomination in this AfD or my comment above. —Alalch E. 22:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this is an essay with a personal point of view. PaulRKil (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not a coherent topic. Before this, the first voter removed many sections that were just examples of conflicts and a random mention of the global memory chip crisis??? Huh?? Reywas92^Talk 02:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Read polycrisis again. A$ianeditorz (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Polycrisis, do you support my idea if we can merge and redirect this article to that said article? -~2026-13734-08 (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an encyclopaedia article and duplicates the Polycrisis article. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia is not for personal essays. Does make a credible claim of significance and is distinct enough from Polycrisis, so WP:A7, WP:A10, and WP:A11 are not applicable.md m.b la 11:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirecting to Polycrisis as WP:R#DELETE says that If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target the redirect should not be created. md m.b la 11:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polycrisis, I think the article should be made a section of the article. MarketFruit (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption College, Changanasserry

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

Only one source, and it’s from the school itself. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Christianity, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GHS Chirakkara

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

Fails NORG. Thilsebatti (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puthenkulam#Nearby educational institutions as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I can find established WP:NCORP. Redirect isn't needed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY as Puthenkulam is becoming a list page for non-notable entries instead of information about the village.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Govt Higher Secondary School, Bhoothakkulam

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

Non notable school. Fails NORG. Thilsebatti (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poothakkulam#Educational institutions as an ATD-R. Additional searches didn't yield sources with SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Das

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

Failing Wp:GNG Zuck28 (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, Hinduism, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shimmer (Bitter Grace album)

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

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Talley Bowden

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

The subject of this article fails to meet WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG as a standalone article. Since it is concerning events during COVID, I feel the subject may be better suited as an addition to a related article covering events that occurred around the pandemic - possibly the Ivermectin section of COVID-19 misinformation as one example. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Conservatism, COVID-19, and Texas. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting at the 2006 South American Games

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG / WP:EVENTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Artbook

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

Whilst this is technically something that exists, I feel this still falls under WP:NOTDICTIONARY and should be redirected to Artists' books where it can be adequately covered in a paragraph there. 11WB (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Literature. 11WB (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's book seems to be about an entirely different concept: "book objects", "works of art that engage with and transform the form of a book". So I don't think it's appropriate to cover this topic there.

However, I am somewhat ambivalent about whether artbook should exist as an article or as a{{wiktionary redirect}}; I considered doing it the wiktionary redirect way initially, which would have been easier for me, but I reconsidered when I encountered this guidance on that template: "There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title". Given that this is a type of object with history, prevalence, etc, it seems to me theoretically in-scope for a Wikipedia article. But I could see the opposing case as well — there might not be any WP:Significant coverage of this type of object out there to discover... Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete There are art books, but not something called an artbook. Even the nom's proposed redirect is not intuitive. Just WP:TNT it. Dingolover makes a fair point below that artbook does seem to be the conventional term in this context. I'm not sure whether that addresses the nominator's concerns, but I withdraw my Delete !vote. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tioaeu8943 but people certainly do use the term artbook for this type of object. For example, https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/metroid-prime-1-3-a-visual-retrospective-artbook-arrives-on-oct-28/ https://www.cyberpunk.net/artbook/en/ https://kojimaproductions-store.com/products/the-art-of-death-stranding-2-on-the-beach https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/clamp-official-artbook-color-shiro-clamp/1147669620 https://www.expedition33.com/monolith-set https://www.eurogamer.net/enslaved-collectors-edition-unveiled https://www.amazon.com/Art-Gears-War-4/dp/150670266X

Maybe you'd like to contend that this is just another way of spelling art book and that that spelling is more usual. I could see that. They both seem to be in currency. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See my modified comment. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tioaeu8943, WP:ITEXISTS is not a sufficient argument to retain an article in the mainspace. Please see WP:ATA. _signed,Kvinnen (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but my assertion that it doesn't exist was false. I'm leaving further discussion to other editors as a demonstration of good faith, because I botched this one. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. WP:NOTDICT. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too common to need any special page, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 05:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ I found a few solid academic sources that analyze this kind of artbook: "Repurposing Concept Art: Video Game Art Books as Industrial Reflexivity", some info on p 115-116 of Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (for movie examples), "Creation of video game art books: a deeper look into what purpose art books for video games provide" (thesis) "Effects of Art Styles on Video Game Narratives" (thesis; includes a survey of artbook purchasers)

I was also able to find LOTS of sources analyzing a different flavour of artbook, ie, coffee table books of paintings/sculptures/etc (like these). It seems these are a major topic of interest in the field of art history; there are dozens of sources about the historical origins of this kind of artbook as well as the nature of the current publishing industry for them. Some examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], possibly this special issue; I've seen mention of a special issue they did in the 1990s too.

The current unsourced stub could plausibly be merged or BLAR'd to coffee table book as a temporary measure until someone chooses to write a properly-sourced article, but I think the topic itself has sufficient standalone notability for an article. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote and now arguing for merge to coffee table book, per the conversation below. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not WP:NOTDICT. _signed,Kvinnen (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some first-pass writing using some of the sources I identified about game and movie artbooks. I haven't touched all the art-historical material yet but I think there's already a lot more here than a mere dictionary definition. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be expanded further with this source about Japanese anime art books and this IndieWire article about Disney's "Art of..." books. Possibly also this book and this article on coffee-table books (which also have material not about artbooks which could expand that article). ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not familiar with the gaming world, so maybe the spaceless "artbook" is a thing, but I think the article is reaching too far when it tries to tie in "fine art collected to illustrate art history", which is an entirely different thing and would have a space (i.e. "art book", that is, books about art). pburka (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, looking at the sources that had some analysis in them, even for the video game / movie ones they have "art book" with a space, same as the fine art ones. I'm not sure that the "artbook"/"art book" difference bears meaning. I'd also personally argue, as a book historian, that media tie-in art books and museum gift shop art books are clearly related objects with related histories, both closely tied to the coffee table book. I could see an arguing for just covering all of them at coffee table book. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee table book sounds reasonable to me. I just don't think there's a meaningful topic here that includes both H. W. Janson's History of Art and a book featuring the storyboards for Fallout, although they're both books about art. I'd also be OK with video game art book (or something similar) which keeps a tight focus. I'm wary of us inventing a new WP:CROSSCAT ("coffee table books about art") that's not based on solid reliable sources. pburka (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
History of Art is not a coffee table book, though, so I wouldn't try to cover it here; it has pictures in it, but it's still a scholarly monograph (or really, a textbook!). This source specifically distinguishes coffee table art books from scholarly art history books (literally, the section is called "The Coffee-Table Book and the Scholarly Book"); and it looks like this thesis would also be useful to talk about that particular subgenre of, basically, "museum tie-in books". In terms of naming, though, the more I look the more it does seem like "coffee table book" (rather than "art book" on its own) is the way people refer to this specific genre, which means I'm talking myself into a merge. I'll update my !vote above. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I feel like it would be hard to find a coffee table book that didn't feature a lot of art. But there might be enough sources to write standalone articles about some subgenres of coffee table books, like video game art books, or museum exhibition books. pburka (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a discussion better had at the article talk page. This has been open a while now, the older !deletes probably mean this is heading to an NC close. 11WB (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually forgot this was even open still until I was notified on Discord. I personally have no opposition to merging and don't mind if it's deleted. As long as this can be closed with some type of consensus, with a plan for where the content ends up, I'm satisfied. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now, this article doesn't know what it is about. At the very top of the article there is a hatnote - Not to be confused with artist's book or book of art. The lede is all about books that include art, and the sourced information is about both video game thingies AND also something about movies According to the media scholar Henry Jenkins, the 1982 film Blade Runner is sometimes identified as the origin of this artistic strategy, in which art direction becomes core to a film's appeal even as it "could only be fully appreciated by reading through the coffee-table books that accompany the release of such films. So the article has 3 ideas and no connective tissue. Please WP:TNT now that the article makes not sense at all. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... it's a bit confusing. I think redirecting elsewhere remains the logical thing to do here, with usable content moved to related articles. 11WB (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But we have no idea or consensus about WHERE this would be redirected. The page should be deleted. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of proposed merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to art book, and change that to disambiguate between artist's book, coffee table book and livres d'art for now. No objection to the old content being merged elsehwere, but the current title is too ambiguous. pburka (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand why this was relisted, however a redirect preserves history meaning content can be appropriately merged elsewhere anyway. 11WB (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Mason (baseball)

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

The notability of this person is premised on her having played professional baseball in 1950. However, we know so little about her baseball career that we don't know for what team or teams she played, what position(s) she played, her handedness nor any of her stats. I did some searching on Newspapers.com and it looks like that's because she was offered a spot on a team and then declined to join them. It seems like she was assumed to be notable just because she was a name on the Kenosha Comets' preseason roster in 1950 but did not actually play. She is not notable otherwise. Newspaper mentions of her after this initial baseball reporting are limited to scattered mentions of community theater performances in Iowa. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with New York, @CAPTAIN RAJU? Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Coment. She might not have played, but I found sigcov of her in this 2023 article published in The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). pburka (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the archived version, by the way. I'm not sure I would call this significant coverage though. This basically just summarizes the same fleeting newspaper coverage from April–June 1950 I found on Newspapers.com: she was going to play for this team but then faded into obscurity. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's 100% significant coverage. It's a newspaper article written about her 70 years later. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely into obscurity. The fact that a newspaper wrote about her short-lived 1950 baseball career in 2023 suggests some notability, but without more examples I don't think GNG is satisfied. I also think it's unlikely we'll find more sources than the local Cedar Rapids researchers were able to uncover, with their access to offline archives. pburka (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motonormativity

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

This term was created by one study and replicated in a second study. The news reports in the references are about the same studies. Guz13 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The term does seem to be novel. Google Books Ngrams does show the pejorative form car brain to exist, and while it's small compared to the more mundane term like "car-centric" (which currently redirects to car dependency just as a {{R from related topic}}), it does seem verifiable and the pattern indicates WP:POTENTIAL. Is there some other title under which this content would be more appropriate? Maybe externalities of cars? --Joy (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the title is a new phrase, the topic has been covered under the other names mentioned for a little longer with discussion beyond just those on Walker's and Goddard's studies. Other sources for "car blindness" and "windshield bias" include [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. I'd support a move to the latter name which seems more common. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Schwedes (Dec 2025) article links to a Goddard (2024) article[18] that specifically states: Referred to variously as “windshield bias,” “car brain,” “car culture,” “auto dominance,” “American’s obsessions with their cars,” etc., Walker, Tapp, and Davis coined the term “motornormativity” (Walker, Tapp, and Davis 2023) to describe this phenomenon. On that note, we also have car culture currently redirected to societal effects of cars, while Books Ngrams show it to be a step further in popularity compared to the term 'car-centric' and others. --Joy (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point here exactly? The phenomenon already existed under other names before this name came around. It's a specific concept that is not the same as the societal effect of cars and is just one aspect of car culture. I wouldn't oppose a move to "car brain" either. — Reywas92^Talk 02:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's plausible that using a relatively recently coined term is a violation of the article title policy, and that we should switch away from it at least until it gains broader acceptance in practice.

The existence of the redirects car brain, car culture and car-centric indicates that even if we weren't to have a standalone article there's no need to delete. --Joy (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have placed the article at "Car brain", a phrase that predates the motonormativity studies by at least a decade. I gather that others disfavor that term for its allegedly pejorative tint, but in any case the concept underlying the article is not a novelty. Einsof (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be in favor of a page move to "Car brain"? Guz13 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I would contend that like the word "jaywalking", the term may be received as a pejorative but is nonetheless more recognizable than any alternative. Einsof (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can we shift this to a page rename? I don't want to waste anybodys time. Guz13 (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw the AfD nomination (just by explicitly saying so, cf. WP:WDAFD), and then go to Talk:Motonormativity and initiate a WP:RM process instead. --Joy (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The concept predates the term. "Windshield bias" and "car blindness" appear in transport policy literature independently of Walker's 2023 study. The nom conflates coinage of a word with existence of the concept. Sparks19923 (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gaga Chromatica Ball

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

This concert special has received very minimal independent coverage. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has only five aggregated critical reviews, which does not appear sufficient to justify a standalone article. A substantial portion of the content—particularly the first two paragraphs of the Background and production section and the entire Synopsis—largely duplicates material already covered in The Chromatica Ball article. Given the lack of distinct sourcing and the degree of overlap, merging this article into the tour article would improve concision and avoid redundancy. The concert special could be summarized in a dedicated subsection within The Chromatica Ball, with this page converted into a redirect pointing to the relevant section. A comparable precedent exists with Taylor Swift: Reputation Stadium Tour, which was merged into its corresponding tour article under similar circumstances. Sricsi (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. Sricsi (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Chromatica Ball per nom. WidgetKid ^Converse 22:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Pradeep Mishra

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

Sources are Routine, announcements, churnalism and Wp:NEWSORGINDIA. Failing GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - None of those sources are in English. All references seem to be in the subject's native language and I'm unable to analyse further. Editors fluent in the subject's local language, kindly help with a source analysis. Thanks! Retro music11 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Iseult^Δxtalk to me 04:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Iranian strikes on Saudi Arabia

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

Couldn't find significant coverage of these specific strikes. Seems like it could be covered sufficiently in the main 2026 Iran conflict page. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Iranian strikes on the Gulf nations have just started and news reports are still coming out. The war is expected to last at least four weeks. There are pages for other countries which have been struck: 2026 Iranian strikes on Kuwait, 2026 Iranian strikes on the United Arab Emirates, 2026 Iranian strikes on Cyprus. Guz13 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similiar articles covering the instances of Iranian attacks on sovereign nations exist. Also the attack on Saudi Arabia is a major event of the war as , Saudi Arabia is known to have been in a proxy war with Iran for decades. The direct attack on Riyadh will be a historically notable event.

Legion of Liberty (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speediest Keep Possible - So much coverage and large scale attacks on oil fields. JaxsonR (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above. Skitash (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 23:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unfortunately, there's been attacks on the US embassy in Riyadh and oil fields today Iran war live updates: U.S. embassy in Riyadh hit by drones (CNBC) Scanlan (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dasomm (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

People Playground

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. For the sources cited in the article, the only non-database one is https://leedsjournal.co.uk/people-playground/, which is clearly from a content farm with no visible editorial policy that seems to be maliciously imitating real news sites for clicks. While https://kotaku.com/people-playground-steam-mod-workshop-virus-2000665028 looks okay, WP:VG/S states that "[Kotaku articles from] 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content", and one piece of questionable coverage isn't enough to confer notability. Mosplot (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mosplot (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've checked for sources on this game in the past. Fails notability entirely. λ NegativeMP1 17:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacking adequate sources to scale notability requirements. Santa Saana (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own web-search has found a reliable source: see here, but one source alone isn't enough to establish notability, especially when the source is about a mod for the game and not the game itself. _♥^✿ TheMDC4 chat :3 ^✿_♥ 19:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reviews present in reliable sources, unfortunately. Metacritic doesn't even list a single source for non-user reviews. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

İsmail Ayaz

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, with the sporting achievements being slim, and WP:GNG, with the sigcov not being there. This is a case about an unrelated person. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kulathoor Phanamugham Devi Temple

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

I cannot find a single source on this temple. Created by a WP:SPA. Probably could have WP:PROD but IMO, I wasn't sure if this thing has another name that I might be missing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, India, and Kerala. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury Cricket Club

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

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. 4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering, Research and Technology, Chandrapur

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and GNG Filmssssssssssss (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG, the only source provided is its own website. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Film Commissioners International

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

Fails WP:NCORP Bryce M (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bryce M (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Khalaf Al Habtoor Assistive Technology Resource Centre

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

This center doesn’t seem to be notable overall. The two independent sources in this article seem to be the only coverage of it that is not passing mention or press releases/puff articles about its main donor. There are also concerns with COI and LLM generation of this article. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Arab Emirates. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Ngando

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

Of the three references included, one is from Linkedin, the other is from a company she is part of a board of, and the third, The Global Women Leader, according to their about page, seems to be owned by an Indonesia gambling company. Nighfidelity (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Cameroon. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTCV. Svartner (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found in Gnews nor in Newspapers, Gsearch only brings up social media and primary. Sourcing is as explained, just not enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this looks like CV, highly promotional and lacking WP:RS to scale notability requirements. Santa Saana (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Nabawanda

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

Being one of the youngest to get a PhD at a given university does not meet any notability criteria; even a 15 year old who gets a PhD does not and she was 31 (which is definitely not young). Her publications to date are minor, no major awards so fails WP:NPROF. None of the sources provide detailed coverage that satisfies WP:42 and WP:SIGCOV so I see no pass of WP:GNG. Page creator opposed PROD on talk page so going to AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Uganda. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is no real claim to notability here (as above, I concur that "one of the youngest women to receive a PhD in mathematics from a certain university" is not one -- far too many hoops to jump through!) and I can find none with a WP:BEFORE. The sources currently provided are WP:ROUTINE at best, if not churnalism (e.g. interviews based around the award of her doctorate): there's also an element of self-promotion in most if not all, which counts strongly against them as reliable sources. The page seems like a laudable effort to improve visibility of women, people from the Global South, young people etc in mathematics, but very much a case of WP:TOOSOON. Only a few years post PhD graduation, there is plenty of time for this person to make a mark that would meet the notability criteria. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely TOOSOON, would not pass academic notability at this time. Could be briefly noted in the Makerere Uni article, I don't see enough for a stand-alone article though. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Noth!ng notable here. Athel cb (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New PhD, not yet notable by WP:PROF standards. And I don't think a couple of news puff pieces about her graduation are enough to demonstrate lasting and encyclopedic interest in her story; for now they fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and other comments. Santa Saana (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: nothing notable here. PamD 08:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Birgit Berthold

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

No evidence subject has WP:SIGCOV or meets WP:NACTOR BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sahatu Ayagi

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

Unsourced since 2011. Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield a single reference about this school, leave aside SIGCOV. WP:ROTM and WP:ITEXISTS applies. The Hausa Wiki didn't help cuz it's the same as this one. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Africa, and Nigeria. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everybody knows that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no sources are found. The verifiability failiure of not having any sources to back up the content is arguably worse than the notability failure. Unsourced content may be challenged and removed, putting the burden on others to provide a source if they want to restore the content. I believe the same standard should apply if the entire article is unsourced. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Licei Linguistico e Pedagogico di Montepulciano

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

Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE in Italian and English yielded nothing useful. Won't mind withdrawing if someone can find sources. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Italy. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tiller Upper Secondary School

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

Redirect to List of schools in Norway#Trøndelag as an ATD. Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE in English and Norwegian didn't find sources with SIGCOV. The other two Wikis didn't help. Won't mind withdrawing if someone can find sources. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Norway. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Dansky

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

Writer/activist lacking WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources; fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. She's been recently mentioned in reliable sources, mainly in passing, due to the activities of Women's Declaration International, the organization she's led, rather than focused on her career/work. The article cites sources such as this interview from the Independent Women's Forum [19] (a conservative nonprofit) and this event blurb from the Atlas Society [20] (an Objectivist nonprofit), both of which aren't independent sources.

As a lawyer with the ACLU, she's written and featured in some news reporting about police militarization earlier in the 2010s, but I don't see significant coverage about herself (rather than the issue she's written/interviewed about). Bridget (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conservatism, Law, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. Bridget (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Some book reviews, would seem to pass AUTHOR [21], [22], [23], [24]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: The first link, to LGB Christians, is not a review; it is copied word-for-word from the linked Amazon listing – if you CTRL-F the text below, it appears verbatim in both the Amazon link and the source you linked, among other sentences:

"Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which claims to represent the interests of women, ignores the problem, while its allies in the organized Left and mainstream media paint all opposition to the “trans” agenda as “right wing.”"

The second is not a book review, it's merely a mention of the book title: "Kara Dansky, The Abolition of Sex: How the “Transgender” Agenda Harms Women and Girls. (2022)" No other mention of Dansky or the book. The fourth source isn't a book review, it's a passing mention of her position at her organization. Only the third link (to the conservative Christian Post) is a review.

Bridget (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it seems we don't have enough sources to pass book review requirements, to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:AUTHOR. Just take a look at both google books and google scholar. This individual has contributed a lot to their field. IJA (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IJA: Thanks, but you're not providing the actual reliable sources to back up that claim. Can you provide any sources that show the contribution to her field? Just saying "search Google" is not helpful, and it's actually touched upon at WP:GOOGLEHITS. Bridget (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not articulating my point clearly enough. I wasn't arguing about the amount of google hits, I was simply demonstrating the topic's volume of academic work that is available to view on Google Books and Google Scholar. But aye, there is clearly enough WP:SIGCOV: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] IJA (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@IJA: A majority of these are generally unreliable or deprecated sources per the community discussions at WP:RSP, mainly because they are tabloids:
You put the source, TERF Island, twice as the 1st and 15th source

#2 is Fox News, which for politics is unreliable per WP:RSP (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS)

#3 is GB News which is unreliable per WP:RSP (see WP:GBNEWS)

#5 is a piece written by Dansky for Independent Women's Forum

#6 does not devote significant coverage to Dansky herself, but simply quotes her as a representative of her organization, WoLF, as such is not WP:SIGCOV

#7 is the tabloid New York Post, generally unreliable per WP:RSP (see WP:NYPOST)

#8 is an event blurb for her organization

#9 and #10 is Fox News, which for politics is unreliable per WP:RSP

#11 and #12 is the tabloid New York Post, generally unreliable per WP:RSP

#13 is the tabloid Daily Mail, a deprecated source per WP:RSP (see WP:DAILYMAIL)

Bridget (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these sources shouldn't be used to reference wikipedia. It doesn't change the fact that this topic has had widespread coverage in mainstream international media, albeit biased media. IJA (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[40][41][42] A few more. IJA (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem with those sources is that they don't devote significant coverage of the person herself. She is being quoted to speak on an issue such as police militarization or as a representative of her own organization. I don't think we can find WP:THREE good sources that are both reliable / independent sources (which can be used on Wikipedia in the first place) and that constitute SIGCOV on Dansky herself (which should be considered for Dansky's notability). I appreciate you taking the time to search for these regardless. Best, Bridget (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to double down here. This is clearly a notable individual. They have had widespread coverage in famous international media (TV, newspapers, online news, books etc) that will have been reached an audience of millions and millions, not to mention their huge volume of published academic work. They are undoubtably notable in the true meaning of the word - "worthy of attention or notice; ie famous". This is a right-wing individual and the vast majority of the media coverage of this individual is in right-wing media. Here at Wikipedia, we have quite rightly agreed that some of these right-wing media organisations are not reliable for the purpose of referencing Wikipedia due to their undisputed bias, and we want to try and have a NPOV on Wikipedia. Now when assessing if an individual has had significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, we also need to bare in mind that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. This is a right-wing individual who is prominent in right-wing media so of course the vast majority of sources are going to be right-wing, it just so happens that these sources are deemed unreliable for the purpose of referencing Wikipedia. To argue that these unreliable sources aren't valid for the purpose of assessing notability seems to be a case of Wikilawyering and not the intended purpose of said guidelines (yes, they are only guidelines). Are we discussing referencing Wikipedia here? No, not all. So back to the start, has this individual had widespread coverage in famous international media that will have been reached an audience of millions? Yes. Are they famous? Yes. Are they notable. Yes! IJA (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For context, I think this Dansky person is an awful individual and I hate Fox News, GB News, The Daily Mail etc. So this is really not a case of WP:ILIKEIT. I objectively believe that this is a famous and notable person. IJA (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources out of all the sources I listed above, only the Daily Mail has the caveat "should not be used for determining notability". This doesn't apply to all the other sources I listed when demonstrating SIGCOV. IJA (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument, IJA. I don't think it's "Wikilawyering" to cite the consensus of these unreliable news outlets at RSP. But I think it's a more surefire method of making sure we have good, reliable sources, rather than a vibe check of how her media coverage feels like. For what it's worth, Fox News has intentionally put out "more articles referencing trans people than there are days in the year for nearly four years". Bridget (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a recent article in Mother Jones titled Meet the Mastermind Behind Trump’s Definition of “Woman”, "TERF activists, particularly Dansky, were the intellectual force behind the effort to enshrine sex definitions." according to May Mailman, a conservative legal activist. She went on to state "The ones that were really driving the charge and had just a lot more knowledge and background, and had been thinking about these issues, writing about these issues, for such a long time, tended to be people on the left". Thriley (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This 2020 article from the Washington Post, titled "Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists" details the activities of Dansky and the The Women’s Liberation Front in depth. Thriley (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dansky meets GNG. She has received widespread coverage for her work, both in the subject of policing and prisons and in her more recent work opposing transgender rights. She is so prominent, that major media organizations including the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post have gotten her to comment as a subject matter expert in dozens of articles published over a decade. The article just needs improvement. Thriley (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Mother Jones or the WaPo article contain much WP:SIGCOV on Dansky – regardless of how often she is quoted in these articles on trans rights, she is doing it as a representative of her organization (and usually speaking on the efforts of her organization or connected ones). Bridget (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article details how she is a spearhead of a campaign to derail the passage of the Equality Act. This kind of work, combined with her extensive work at the Stanford Criminal Justice Center and the ACLU, makes her meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thriley and IJA's points. She is an important individual figure in these movements and orgs she's speaking on behalf of, doesn't matter if the coverage isn't specifically all about her. See also NBC [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacabreChupacabra (talk • contribs) 10:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I know who Dansky is and i was hoping to find sources that qualify as green or yellow on the RS noticeboard to justify keeping the page but there just doesn't seem to me that much out there that qualifies. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This 2007 piece in Stanford Magazine details Danksy's work there: [44]. Thriley (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the alumni magazine of the institution she was employed at, that source brings up concerns of its locality (since we're judging her notability based on existing sources) and possibly its independence (as opposed to reputable academic publications or larger regional/national news outlets). Bridget (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
University magazines, particularly those from institutions like Stanford, are usually excellent sources of information. This piece can be used to expand on her role at the Stanford Criminal Justice Center. Thriley (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I say "possibly" because there have been some controversial situations (Penn State, UIdaho, Dartmouth, listed at Alumni magazine#Controversies) in which their independence has been called into question. These are publications, target towards alumni, which focus on the work of faculty, staff, and students. Of course they will cover a director at the institution. Bridget (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine has won numerous awards including The Robert Sibley Magazine of the Year award four times. The reporting has no sign of being questionable. Thriley (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's borderline, but I think the source coverage of her book through the reviews is enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. Some of the keep voters are working really hard to discredit some of the reviews which seem reliable enough.4meter4 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: As far as an WP:NAUTHOR pass, I see only see one book review, Christian Post [45], which is already cited in the article. Could you point out what other reviews of her books from RS exist? I would be more inclined to agree if I saw the sources. Bridget (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Choctaw Agency

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

No blue links to disambiguate. Gjs238 (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I moved to List of Choctaw agencies. People refer to "they met at the Choctaw agency" in articles and old documents and I thought it would be helpful to figure out what that meant. jengod (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Disambiguation moved to list. Many thanks to jengod. Gjs238 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely thanks very much for helping me think about these! I knew they weren't quite square and have been mildly anxious about it but couldn't figure out quite how to frame them. Will work on source citations for both lists and I presume there are umpteen other cases for the Cherokee, Lakota, etc. jengod (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hubie Smith

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

I could not find wide secondary coverage regarding this individual. Only primary database sources and community newspaper postings. Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
del - no in-depth coverage, also fails WP:NCOLLATH. --Altenmann >talk 02:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the real WP:SIGCOV needed for WP:ANYBIO to be kept. Possibly redirect to one of the schools with most championships. If we end up going that direction and we can decide on a redirect target, ping me please. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep — pass of WP:GNG. Subject is a TSSAA Hall of Famer with a historic record: 700+ wins, 7 state titles, and one of only three TN coaches to achieve a four-peat. Brentwood Academy's Hubie Smith, a seven-time state champ, retires as boys basketball coach, [46], and [47]. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOACH does not exist. Historyexpert2 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user modified their comment to remove mention of nonexistent essay. Historyexpert2 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources already in the article, and a multitude available. He's the only coach to have won state titles in both men's and women's basketball. He's won titles at three different schools, and is a member of the TSSAA hall of fame.Jacona (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further comment, the nom states "Only primary database sources and community newspaper postings". The first page of google results when I searched included in-depth articles in USA Today and the Tennesseean. [48], [49], [50]. The Commercial Appeal in Memphis, TN, the leading paper in that market also has many, many articles about Smith. — Jacona (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school basketball coach with local high school coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. [51][52][53][54] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is all local high school coverage, though. The "USA Today" coverage is USATodayHHS, which in part is a collection of High School sports stories from USA Today Co./Gannett-owned newspapers (which includes the The Tennessean). This is an article about a high school basketball coach and therefore WP:YOUNGATH likely applies given the lack of actual consistent national coverage. I would also note that a high school coach being part of his state's high school athletic association hall of fame is not an WP:ANYBIO pass, particularly when you consider that they can be inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame. The argument to keep is that the subject was a longtime successful high school coach in the Nashville metropolitan area, and I don't think meets the standards for an International encyclopedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93, "The argument to keep is that the subject was a longtime successful coach in the Nashville metropolitan area". I must respectfully disagree with that statement. He won 7 state championships at 3 schools. Six of these were in the Nashville area; the other was halfway across the state at Bartlett High School in Memphis. He's in the Tennessee State Hall of fame as a coach. He is the only coach to have won TN state titles in both girls and boys basketball. There's coverage in Mississippi and Arkansas papers as well. Less useful information exists about him as a player in Memphis and Arkansas publications, and about his college level coaching at U of Memphis, Belmont, and Lipscomb. He was a first-team NAIA Academic All-American in both golf and basketball. There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. — Jacona (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the US STATE titles being "Halfway across the state" is still not notability supporting. Being an Academic All-American is not a BIO pass for NCAA Division I let alone NAIA. Allowing a high school coach who has some coverage from their high school and college (again local coverage to boot) opens the door for literally THOUSANDS OF US HIGH SCHOOL COACHES to meet notability standards. If there was a New York Times or an old-school Sports Illustrated article on Smith, maybe, but we have no such coverage. If Smith is finalist for the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame, he might be notable but otherwise I think no. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93, The point of the "halfway across the state" comment was to point out that the comment that he was merely a coach in the Nashville area was false, whether a mistake or an intentional falsehood, only the original writer can know. As to the assertions above, I will address the "literally THOUSANDS OF US HIGH SCHOOL COACHES comment." Have thousands of US high school coaches won 7 state championships (probably) in both womens and mens (unlikely) at 3 schools, including four championships in a row? The number is more likely around 5, and I would be surprised if they don't have articles. — Jacona (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would encourage editors considering a vote on re-reading the general notability guideline, especially the portion on significant coverage. There is no reason that a sports illustrated article is required. Local coverage, so long as it is independent of the subject, can certainly fill the bill. In this case, there is an abundance of coverage in large regional newspapers, in stark contrast to the nomination, which claims there are "Only primary database sources and community newspaper postings". Are the Tennessean and the Commercial Appeal (along with USA Today and the dozens of other publications) found in a rudimentary search "primary databases" or "community newspaper postings"? If that is true, there are no legitimate newspapers in the state of Tennessee as they are the two largest in the state. — Jacona (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors have countless regionally scoped papers about them but no Wikipedia article. Historyexpert2 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- as per points suggested above demonstrating the notability of the subject, please have the verifiable SIGCOV sources added to the article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The sources on the article aren't great, but my fellow editors did a great job finding the sources mentioned above, that convinced me the article is a keeper. Happy to help incorporate the sources if it survives. Please ping me. ScottyNolan (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiOriginal-9 and Jacona. WP:GNG is clearly met here by the evidence presented. Being in a state hall of fame indicates this is not your typical high school coach as well. He's clearly encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chickasaw agency

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

None of the articles listed are blue links. Only blue links are in descriptions. Gjs238 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I moved to List of Chickasaw agencies. People refer to "they met at the Chickasaw agency" in articles and old documents and I thought it would be helpful to figure out what that meant. jengod (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Not a disambiguation page. Article improved. Many thanks to jengod. Gjs238 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All good and thanks for the helping as I potter around here fiddling with things. jengod (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Chickasaw pageLordofhunter (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Community College, Bengaluru

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

Redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions#Karnataka as an ATD. Tagged for notability since 2018. Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE yielded nothing useful. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Azafran

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

A disambiguation page is not required. "Corrales azafran" is a WP:Partial title match. Redirecting to Saffron is not appropriate (Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ditaxis heterantha as the only valid entry on the page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others. Toadspike [Talk] 17:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus Orienteering Federation

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

Fails WP:NORG as lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Belarusian Wikipedia article is completely unsourced. AusLondonder (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Belarus. AusLondonder (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in the Russian Wikipedia[55][56]. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources, titled "CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SPORTS ORGANISATION "BELARUSIAN ORIENTEERING FEDERATION" IN AGE GROUPS" as part of "Proceedings of the V INP Conference / Grodno Regional Orienteering Federation" does not appear to be independent nor significant coverage. The other source is a lengthy document in Russian which is difficult to translate and verify its suitability, but appears to be a general overview of the history of orienteering in Belarus and the former Soviet Union. Per WP:ORGCRIT We require "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:SIRS the criteria for sources to establish notability of an organisation are:
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

AusLondonder (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your objection? The word "federation" is mentioned 9 times in the first source, and the acronym BOF - 16 times, it is clearly sigcov. The second source is also fine as it includes analysis such as, An analysis of the information allows for the conclusion that changes in the number of members within the age groups of the public sports organization "Belarusian Orienteering Federation" occur primarily due to transitions based on age parameters. Other factors include the influx of schoolchildren and students (MW16-18), the cessation of active competition performances, and the emergence of new priorities (MW-21). Kelob2678 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the "CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SPORTS ORGANISATION "BELARUSIAN ORIENTEERING FEDERATION" IN AGE GROUPS" source does not appear to be independent. The other source may contain mentions of the organisation but it is not clear that it addresses "the subject of the article directly and in depth." Even if we consider one of these sources acceptable, which is in doubt, it is insufficient per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The two authors are employed by Belarusian universities[57][58], how is the source not independent? Regarding the other source, you can read it. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article can be rewritten to be about Orienteering in Belarus, which is easier to source. The Federation can be a subsection of it. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to you creating a new article about orienteering in Belarus if you can locate sufficient significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kelob2678 and AusLondoner. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 13:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per AusLondonder, what is that supposed to mean? AusLondoner nominated it for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Escola Maria Imaculada (Chapel School)

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

A well-regarded private school, but lacks WP:SIGCOV / independent coverage. I only found sources directly linked to the institution and social media. Svartner (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Sulzberger

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

The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV / in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Australia. Svartner (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Potter (cyclist)

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

The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV / in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Australia. Svartner (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCYC. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was speedy delete per A7 by Justlettersandnumbers. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Sudev Haldar

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

Not notable at all, there is no coverage by any media report that I could find. SecretSpectre (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. SecretSpectre (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete llm-generated promo. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per WP:PROMO, No indication of notability Zuck28 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Per WP:DENY / no votes for delete. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keyvan Rafiee

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

He fails to establishing notability under WP:GNG 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Iran, Politics, and People. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of 2026-02-24 13:18 GMT the article has following references:[59], [60], [61], [62] These are from Radio Farda which is funded by the US government and cannot be used a reliable independent source. [63] which only briefly mentions his name. [64] which is an URGENT post from amnesty international. This post has been retracted [65] and cannot be used. [66] which is fails WP:RS. [67] which fails WR:RS and is written in a deceitful way by listing as author the AP. There are also some YouTube videos that fail WP:RS. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Radio Farda can be a reliable source for Wikipedia, its in the "yellow" Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. A delete page from the past is not the same as a redaction. You have provided no proof for any of your claims against these citations, seems like a personal bias issue. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. I need more proof then what has been provided. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Radio Farda was mostly reliable, and BBC remains, reliable sources. Even Al Jazeera is reliable in such matters. Bearian (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has since been blocked indefinitely for conduct issues (not necessarily fully related to this nomination) and is suspected to be a sock. No direct opinion on the article, but based on the other comments here so far that might more fully tip this toward ending as "keep". WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Make (platform)

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

The company does not meet NCORP criteria. It relies on sources that provide no significant coverage or interviews/promo-placements in Czech media. PrudskaSofa (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Czech Republic, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I apologize for my previous post. English is not my native language, so I would like to restate my argument briefly in my own words

In my opinion, the subject has received significant coverage beyond just passing mentions. Several independent articles from major media outlets provide detailed analysis of the acquisition and further context, rather than just simple rewrites of press releases e.g. TechCrunch - link and established Czech media like Hospodářské noviny - link, Lupa.cz, Forbes CZ (link)...

I have also updated the article with independent sources from recent years such as , TechInformed and CIOFirst to demonstrate that independent editorial interest in the subject has continued in recent years.

Thank you for considering my arguments. Monika MonikaKubasakova (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep – The subject meets the notability criteria due to independent coverage in both global and national media documenting its financial milestones and technological development.

1) Significant independent coverage of the acquisition (primary basis)

The acquisition of Integromat (now Make) by Celonis in 2020 was widely covered by independent editorial media and was not limited to brief mentions or press releases. TechCrunch described the transaction as being “over $100 million” (the exact amount was not officially disclosed), and Czech business and technology media provided separate in-depth coverage and context:

TechCrunch (en-wiki) – Editorial coverage of the acquisition and its relevance in the automation space
Hospodářské noviny (en-wiki) – Independent business coverage of the transaction and its financial context
Lupa.cz (cs-wiki) – Independent technology reporting on the acquisition and platform impact
CzechCrunch (cs-wiki) – Independent coverage of the company and its development:

These constitute significant independent coverage under GNG and NCORP.

----

2) Non-English sources are acceptable (WP:NONENG)

The cited Czech sources are established media outlets with standard editorial oversight (e.g., Forbes.cz (en-wiki) , Hospodářské noviny, Lupa.cz, CzechCrunch). They published independent editorial articles focused on the subject. These are not press releases, blogs, or company announcements, but independent journalistic coverage.

----

3) Additional independent coverage of technological development (supplementary)

The subject’s relevance is not limited to the 2020 exit. There is more recent independent coverage of its technological development:

SiliconANGLE – Editorial article on Make’s AI automation developments / AI Agents
Hrot24 (cs-wiki) – Independent interview and strategic analysis
CIOFirst – Coverage of Make AI Agents in the context of enterprise IT management
Robotics and Automation News – Report on AI landscape and visualization tools within the platform
TechInformed – Report from Waves 2025 conference regarding AI agents and Model Context Protocol (MCP)

This demonstrates that independent media continue to cover the subject beyond the acquisition event.

----

Conclusion:

Given the significant and independent coverage of the acquisition, along with continued independent reporting on technological development, the subject meets the notability standards under NCORP and should be kept. MonikaKubasakova (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MonikaKubasakova (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsetto

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

The content does not meet NCORP criteria, is promotional in tone, and relies on sources that provide only passing mentions rather than significant independent coverage. PrudskaSofa (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lithuania, Health and fitness, and Companies. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Since I am very new to these deletion discussions, so this is only a minor comment, but there seems to be some independent coverage in veryy reliable publications that discusses the company and its funding and product in more than a brief mention. I really think that deletion is not necessary. Thank you all! ohh, I did minor improvements.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Roman switch line

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Germany, and Italy. 4meter4 (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gothic Line, the much larger, more notable parent article. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Caesar C line, which seems to be the more direct parent, though no objection to choosing a merge to Gothic Line. Either is the preferred WP:ATD option. Alansohn (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outlast Technologies

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

Tagged for notability since 2012, I couldn't find sources that meet WP:SIRS. MightyRanger (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and United States of America. MightyRanger (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added multiple reliable secondary sources (good ones!) to the article to support the main claims, so it’s now better referenced and easier. Lets keep it baby! Entidalumen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entidalumen (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zwick Roell Group

AfDs for this article:

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

This company doesn't seem notable, I could find no WP:SIRS but someone searching in German might find better sources. MightyRanger (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MightyRanger (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep substanial coverage here [68] Jahaza (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
also EBSCOhost 58144716: Revenue creation: business models for product-related services in international markets - the case of Zwick GmbH & Co. KG. By: Zähringer, Daniel, Niederberger, Jochen, Blind, Knut, Schletz, Alexander, Service Industries Journal, Feb2011, Vol. 31, Issue 4 Jahaza (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first source appears to be an interview with the ~~founder~~ owner, which fails WP:SIRS. The second source is an academic paper, and not SIGCOV. I haven't seen anything that would meet NCORP. MightyRanger (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MightyRanger, it's absolutely not an interview. It's an article which contains quotes from the owner, which is not the same thing at all. It's certainly not an interview with the founder, given that the article is from 2010 and the firm was founded in 1920. The idea that an academic case study of a company is not significant coverage is just bizarre. Jahaza (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to write owner. The point is that the first source fails the standards of WP:NCORP. There isn't anything in that paper (which is a case study comparing two companies) that shows this company is notable. It's certainly not enough to satisfy NCORP on its own. MightyRanger (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Anderton (rugby union)

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

The Rugby Football Union is the parent of many daughter Unions, in my case Rugby Australia. It would appear to me that there is no attestation here that a person of this name has played any games in UK domestic rugby union, let alone for England. As always, please do prove me wrong.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I think this is sufficiently improved now. I've managed to track down the details and confirm the broad outlines of his career (played one international game for England plus a few for the county). The ESPN citation was available on archive.org so have salvaged that, though it seems they got the dates wrong. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Purple European Tour

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

This page is made up synthesis and original research. It isn't a specific tour, it's just a bunch of gigs which bands needed to do in order to make enough money to keep going. There are a few sources to individual gigs, but not to the tour as a whole. And having an infobox picture with Rory Gallagher on a Deep Purple article makes no sense. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator. This is not really a tour, just a list of shows that happened to take place within the same time period, with no coverage as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HorrorLover555 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Schütz

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

No notability besides being a grandfather of Pauli. The article is unsourced for ten years. Artem.G (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3, included in the Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Residual block termination

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

Unsourced since 2004. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A possible alternative is redirecting to residual neural network as it's related to ResNet or cyptography. I see some possible sources for expanding the article, too. – The Grid (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete no hope Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Morton (American writer)

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

This article is an interesting edge case. The references link primarily to the subject's own work, with a handful of sources that are neither WP:RS nor significant coverage. The subject is a writer, so Worldcat was the most fruitful source. The books Pop Void, Movies Behind the Wall, and Incredibly Strange Films are held in several libraries; as far as I can tell, his other titles are not. I do think the prose on the page is so overly-promotional that it needs to be heavily edited if the consensus is to keep it. Citrivescence (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United States of America, and California. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 08:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Existing sources do indicate a WP:GNG pass. However, I agree that the article needs to be improved in terms of existing tone and promotional prose. Retro music11 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link the existing sources that you believe meet WP:RS to help other editors reading this discussion? Citrivescence (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article is kind of a mess, but from what I know of this guy, I think he is notable and more sources are out there. Will check later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Dexter

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

Article about a fictional footballer that is all fancruft with no independent out-of-universe coverage. If not deletion, then merge with Roy of the Rovers. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Sports. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 08:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partial merge to Roy of the Rovers. I don't see the need for all the information, but I can't see why it can't be combined into Roy of the Rovers. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Space Camp Wellness

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

This article is almost completely promotional and has no significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. I did a web search and couldn't find any references that meet WP:RS. This article should be deleted. Citrivescence (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Citrivescence (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sturniolo Triplets as an WP:ATD. Sources are press releases and churnalism, and the article appears AI-generated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mirzapuri

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

The articles is created by a banned user known for disrupting and forge editing. This article contradict in the sources itself. Author has used his own makeup to create a seprate article where every other sources references that it doesnt exist. Hence it should be deleted under GP-5 Adrikshit (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gastón Gorrostorrazo

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

Fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, played 279 minute in Uruguay's first league. Databases and WP:ROUTINE sources can not be included among WP:THREE. Geschichte (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Uruguay. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASICSPORT as a non-notable footballer. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Radonifying function

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps a merge to Johann Radon as an WP:ATD?4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move. There are no hits in Google Scholar or zbMath for "Radonifying function" but many (over 500 in Google Scholar with 26 having it in the title) for "Radonifying operators" and a few for "Radonifying mappings", enough to convince me that this is a notable topic and not merely some individual researcher's pet project. I think they are on the same topic. The original references appears to be in French, by Fields medalist Laurent Schwartz, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, under the name "applications radonifiantes" (here applications means mappings, not the English meaning of applications). So this should be moved to Radonifying operator. It does need referencing but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discovering the title discrepancy.4meter4 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pattanakkad Public School

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

Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:MILL applies. BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's High School, Amalapuram

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

Redirect List of Jesuit educational institutions#Andhra Pradesh 2 as an ATD-R. Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Andhra Pradesh. BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ibero College Tijuana

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

Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield sources with SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Mexico. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I even tried searching for "Colegio Ibero Tijuana" (Spanish name) and all the mentions are just in passing. If there's coverage, its probably in offline sources, but that's for someone to prove later. I did a quick search through Zeta Tijuana, Imparcial, and other local newspapers and didn't find anything useful online. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)

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

The article, sources and my BEFORE doesn't suggest that the Order is notable; that said, it's pretty much just a List of Order of Phoenix characters and a sublist of List of Harry Potter characters. An easy solution may be to rename this to such a list and keep per LISTN and as sublist of the main list. But if we want to keep this a non-list article, we need better sourcing (the ones present are about the characters, not the order - note that no sources even mention the order in their heading, outside the primary source itself). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there was a merge proposal, which I authored under my old account (Wafflewombat) in 2024, and there was a deletion discussion way back in 2007.

As I mentioned in the merge proposal, I was able to find very little in terms of sources that would provide evidence of the Order's notability. I would encourage other editors to do a search as well, so we don't rely purely on my efforts.

As the article stands, it is mostly just a bloated list of characters, and it seems those character descriptions could be condensed and added to List of Harry Potter characters, which is a slightly less problematic article given it's a list and it has better sourcing. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is similar to Dumbledore's Army, which was merged in 2024. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is really nasty to look for sources with the overlap to the book title. In the way of collecting some sources, [69], [70] and [71] each has some specific piece of analysis on the Order. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Harry Potter characters until further sources are found. Having an "Organisations" or "Groups" section there could be useful content- and navigation-wise, showing how some characters are grouped (Order of the Phoenix, Dumbledore's Army, Death Eaters, Ministry of Magic, the magical schools, etc.). I don't have the energy to dig further myself if the Order (or "Organisations in Harry Potter") might have stand-alone notability. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Creating a List of Harry Potter organizations would likely make sense given similar lists we have (List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That would be a good idea if there are any other organizations in the Harry Potter franchise to list there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Harry Potter characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE while also restructuring the page to accommodate it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Harry Potter characters per above. Not much individual notability but a valid target to discuss the group. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

President's College (Guyana)

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

Fails in GNG, WP:NORG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield sources with SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Radelgar of Benevento

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

Unsourced since 2006. Only finding genealogy type coverage. Might be better covered at Prince of Benevento.4meter4 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, the ruler the Duchy of Benevento. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, a sufficiently important ruler, even if not much is known. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Commet. Come on guys, unsourced for twenty years, and the sources in WP:NEXIST have sparse coverage. This is clearly a good candidate for WP:NOPAGE not only for failing WP:V but because its likely to remain a WP:PERMASTUB that can be covered in better context elsewhere.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This PhD dissertation mentions Radelgar 88 times. I will expand the article with sources shortly. Srnec (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's College, Monte Grande

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

Fails in GNG, WP:NORG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. Current sources are PRIMARY. Didn't find anything in my BEFORE. Won't mind withdrawing if someone can find sources. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Argentina. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Diocesano Monseñor Miguel Ángel Alemán

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

Redirect to Ushuaia#Education, where it's mentioned, under WP:ATD-R. Fails in GNG, WP:NORG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield sources with SIGCOV. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ROTM applies. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Argentina. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference table

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

Unsourced since 2005. Not sure this topic has a clear focus/scope or definition. "Reference table" can mean so many things. Honestly not sure what to do with this, but the status quo of an all over the place article with no referencing isn't tenable.4meter4 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page is unfocused, and in over a decade, it looks like most of the substantive edits have been trolling. Concept exists, but would need a full rewrite. SenshiSun (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The database explanation is incredibly hard to read - there is an obviously good idea to list the possible values of some field such as 'status' in another table, but we do not have a single reference to show that this is consistently referred to as a "reference table". The expression is so generic that it could mean anything, as exemplified by the second (unrelated) paragraph. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Data domain which appears to be the same thing, just better written. The only thing to merge is the alternative names.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's High School, Jamnagar

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

Redirect to Jamnagar#Education, where it's mentioned, under WP:ATD-R. Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamnagar#Education as best WP:ATD and fail of WP:NSCHOOL. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IFC Pego Cup

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

Non-notable friendly tournament. Fails in WP:NEVENT. Svartner (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Bulgaria, and Spain. Svartner (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable one-time tournament held way back in 2008. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing WP:NEVENT. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Iron Springs, Indiana

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

Al evidence I found, including the cited work, indicates that there was no town and that the label referred to the springs themselves and by extension to the structures erected there, which eventually burned down. These places don't as a rule pass notability for what they actually were, and I don't see this one as an exception. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Hayatullah

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

WP:OR article that fails in GNG. I didn't find any SIGCOV sources in my BEFORE. Won't mind withdrawing if someone can find sources. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, India, and Haryana. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wenche Stensvold

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

Non-notable / WP:MILL cyclist without WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Norway. Svartner (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Redirect to Norwegian National Time Trial Championships#Women is a reasonable WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Hear Me? (Evermore song)

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

Unsourced since 2009, and appears to contain quite a bit of WP:OR. Song did not chart, and I was unable to find any significant coverage in a WP:BEFORE, aside from the mentions on the usual WP:USERGEN sites.

I propose a redirect to the album (Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show) as a sensible WP:AtD. nil^nz 02:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and New Zealand. nil^nz 02:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show. Fails WP:NSONG; two citation needed tags and no sources. Yikes. Red Shell Momentum 02:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show. Unsourced while a good chunk of the page is taken up with an overlong quote. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tetyana Andrushchenko

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

Non-notable / WP:MILL cyclist without WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Ukraine. Svartner (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a WP:MILL. She meets WP:CYCLING as being the National Champion of Ukraine and was a main Ukrainian cyclist in her era. I also added content that she was after her career the president of the Ukrainian Cycling Federation and cycling coach. More coverage would be available in Ukrainian sources. ~2026-13508-11 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

American invasion

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

The right venue, during Talk:American invasion §§ Requested move 22 February 2026 and RM discussion. Abesca (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Military, Politics, and United States of America. Abesca (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Info: Is this being nominated because it's not a proper disambig or because the name needs to be changed? SenshiSun (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to war involving the united states and make the other topics in a disambugation page ~2026-13490-53 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of wars involving the United States, this is not a proper dab page due per WP:PARTIAL. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list doesn't even include the only semi-legitimate page (American Invasion Tour); all the current entries are partial title matches. List of invasions is quite sufficient. Plus the title is ambiguous; are they invasions by America or of America (e.g. War of 1812)? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have just nominated Invasion of Mexico for deletion for practically the same reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kelob2678 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to Hang Around

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Reviews from Panorama.no [72] and Verdens Gang [73]. Red Shell Momentum 01:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The album also charted in France and Norway, which helps its case for notability even if it doesn't single-handedly prove it. Red Shell Momentum 02:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per WP:HEY. It's one review short of meeting WP:GNG, but with charting status in two countries and two decent critical reviews I think we can view this as passing WP:NALBUM. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Norway had a very developed press, so every Norwegian album at that time would receive upwards of 20 reviews. This album also netted the band a Spellemannprisen [74] Geschichte (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Joe Calhoun

AfDs for this article:

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

Hello, I am new to this. I live in Lancaster, PA and today we had a panic about an impending snow storm that never happened. We were joking about Joe Calhoun and I was surprised to find someone made an article about him back in September and it was nominated twice for deletion (as it should). There is very weak citations here and the user promised to clean the article up. As it stands, yes, he may have very weak citations, but the page says where he went to school, when he retired, an uncited source about 75th WGAL anniverary and finally that he cooks with his son. The users reasoning for keeping the page so much is that WGAL history is important. Maybe (I disagree that Lancaster, PA is that important but I digress...), but Joe Calhoun could be mentioned in the WGAL article itself along with his awards and brief career history. He is not important enough to warrant an entire article. Vectorskin (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Iowa, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Vectorskin! It looks like the first time this article was nominated, the consensus was to delete. The second time, the result was keep because the delete side's argument was based on procedural issues, not anything to do with the page.

It sounds like you're nominating this for deletion because you don't think the citations are strong enough for a full article.

Currently leaning keep, as there seems to be enough information from varied sources, but I'm not sure how many of those publications are owned by Hearst (who he worked for), and I don't have time to check. SenshiSun (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes more sense to have him mentioned in the WGAL article itself. Joe did not revolutionize the field of meteorology. The article as-is says where he went to school, when he started at WGAL, and that he and his soon cook together. That is barely an article and especially for someone who is not important in their field. I see the previous two delete discussions mentioned salting as they seem to agree this was also pushing the limits. I don't know if we need to go that far (yet), but I really feel moving him into the main WGAL article unless the original author can find a compelling reason as to why he needs a full page dedicated as to why is the best overall solution and compromise. Vectorskin (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It may help to explain that we had a user creating a lot of articles about current and former WGAL personalities while ignoring notability guidelines. (They have since been indefinitely blocked.) These people need to meet the WP:GNG, and they generally don't do so on the background of working at WGAL alone. I've worked on hundreds of TV station pages and typically find myself prodding or AfDing someone who worked for most of the stations I do. A redirect back to WGAL would be reasonable, but it is our standard practice not to list former employees that don't have articles in and of themselves. Thus, the best option is to delete. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is my first time proposing AfD so sorry for the formatting and some procedures. No insult to Joe Calhoun, but it's not like he had some ground-breaking career and changed the field of meteorology. He went to college and had a career. That's essentially the article. I was unaware about the standard practice in regards to that. Personally, I'm ok with listing former long-term personalities but where do you draw the line? That's probably a discussion for another time. In any case, I realized I did not bold that I am obviously voting for delete. Vectorskin (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources cited in the article meet WP:GNG with at least 5 to my count containing WP:SIGCOV. His induction into the Silver Circle of the Mid-Atlantic Emmy Awards demonstrates he meets criteria 4C of WP:NJOURNALIST. Not seeing a valid reason to delete the article. The conversation here doesn't seem to be source targeted and appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT nonsense. 4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

God's Beads

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:FUTURE as the series has not yet premiered and lacks the "significant, independent, and non-trivial" coverage required for a standalone entry. While filming reportedly concluded sometime in 2025, current sourcing remains limited to routine casting confirmations and production updates, which constitutes routine news coverage rather than established notability under WP:GNG. Given the absence of critical reception or an imminent fixed release date beyond a vague 2026 window, the article is premature and should be deleted or draftify until it meets the threshold for permanent inclusion. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 18:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Korea. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 18:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom grapesurgeon (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This is WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until after premiere. SenshiSun (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Huria

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

I do not believe there is significant coverage in reliable sources of this individual. The main source is this article is a self-published website unsuitable to be used in a BLP per WP:BLPSPS. There are several online sources that are independent that mention her but they do not provide significant coverage of her as a person and are mainly interviewing her in her role as a spokeswoman for various causes. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would dispute that Kōmako is a self-published website. It's compiled by Bridget Underhill, originally as part of her PhD thesis, and she is arguably an expert in the field; the website also receives funding from the University of Canterbury [75]. While the information on the website about Huria is sourced to correspondence with her, and to that extent may not be reliable or independent, it's also sourced to a 1993 article in The New Zealand Listener. Unclear what the nature of that article is, but could be a source that supports notability. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXPERTSPS does not apply to BLPs. If her PhD thesis has been published by a reputable publisher it could be cited/used. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: well-sourced as recipient of Order of Merit; Guardian describes her as one of "two prominent leaders within Ngāi Tahu, New Zealand’s largest southern tribe,". That looks like notability. PamD 09:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And there's 2025 coverage of her as a poet - see this, this, a poem, etc. Needs more in the article, but adds more to notability. PamD 09:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Her poetry was recently reviewed in Landfall, too: [76]. And there's this article from her MNZM citation also using the "prominent leader" description: [77]. Chocmilk03 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit is not a significant award, over 100 people receive one each year, its the lowest level of an OBE.

The first source is an interview, the second is a profile for an event she was apart of, and the third is her poem... none of these qualify as independent sourcing, which is required for a standalone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Huria meets WP:ANYBIO as a recipient of the New Zealand Order of Merit (MNZM), a significant national honour. In addition, there is independent coverage (e.g., The Guardian) and substantial documentation of her governance and public leadership roles. The subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG.Im going to eat a worm (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKEStar Mississippi 01:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea about GNG, but I strongly disagree that she meets ANYBIO. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added her poetry collection and the art exhibition she commissioned to support Ngāi Tahu's freshwater claim. She's had multiple leadership roles and describing her as a "spokeswoman for various causes" seems rather dismissive. I also disagree with Traumnovelle on the notability of MNZM. They don't exactly hand them out with the Weetbix. DrThneed (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There 128 new Members last year, the majority of these people are not notable. I have a relative with one, it is not a tall-task to receive a MNZM, the British OBE has over 100,000 living members, the majority MBEs (equivalent to the MNZM). Traumnovelle (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one of the Keeps is a sock, and resolve the disagreement w/r/t MNZM
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. Published reviews of her poetry appear to meet criteria at WP:AUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Light for Days

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

Fails the notability guideline for albums. The coverage in reliable sources which I was hoping for does not appear to have materialized in the four months the album has been out, as verified by a quick check. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and England. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are many albums with published articles containing much less information. RSound (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: charted on UK and Scottish charts. J04n(talk page) 00:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacob Collier. NMUSIC is quite clear that charting does not make something automatically notable, and I have an entire essay explaining/clarifying that here. Sources are still required to establish notability. Keeping an article based solely on the fact it charted is not based on policy. λ NegativeMP1 17:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to artist per above. WidgetKid ^converse 06:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)~~[reply]

Weak keep per Jazz Thing, Guitar World, and charting, but article needs to incorporate Jazz Thing article. WidgetKid ^Converse 18:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacob Collier Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of a WP:BEFORE from the above posters is worrying, but the problem I encountered was a lack of independency in the coverage. Here is coverage from Jazz thing [de]. Geschichte (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A review from Rondo magazine [de], coverage from The Observer, coverage from The Miscellany News, which is a student newspaper, so its reliability may be questioned.. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to asses the sourcing identified and resolve whether to keep or redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources identified by Kelob2678 and WidgetKid are enough to demonstrate a WP:GNG pass. Charting also meets an WP:NALBUM criteria.4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kunjukrishnan Nadar Memorial Government Arts and Science College

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Also a WP:BROCHURE Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

H.H. Maharani Sethu Parvathi Bai N.S.S. College for Women

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Page is pretty much just a WP:BROCHURE Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's High School, Mt. Abu

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

Insufficient sources to support WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Rajasthan. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

College of Engineering, Poonjar

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another one in the not ending list of NSCHOOL failures. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of educational institutions in Palai as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Baby John Memorial Government College

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

Insufficient sources to support WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The college gets PASSING mentions in multiple sources that mention about a professor from this college finding a new fish species, but no SIGCOV about the college whatsoever. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Kerala as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cyril's College, Adoor

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

Insufficient sources to support WP:NSCHOOL and WP:V Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just a PROMO written as a WP:BROCHURE. Doesn't have standalone notability. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Education in Pathanamthitta district#Arts & Science colleges as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Institute of Science and Technology

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

Fails WP:NSOURCE and WP:GNG. No sources on this page except from the school itself Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mookkannoor#Institutions, where it's mentioned as an ATD. Found few ROUTINE coverage but no SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dienst

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

I don't think this person meets WP:BIO or WP:NJOURNALIST. This is a 1998 wedding announcement from the New York Times. Mediaite has short remarks with little substance from 2010. His employer biography says he's won an Emmy but it appears to be the New York Emmy, not the national Emmy News and Documentary award. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 22:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and New York. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 22:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Georgia (U.S. state), and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Agree with nom's points. I looked around for coverage but had some difficulty determining if there was SIGCOV on him because he's a journalist himself, so searches for his name turn up a lot of his bylines and interviews. Possibly I missed some good coverage as a result. I did find that he won an Edward R. Murrow Award: [78] but there are many awards with this name and I don't know how important it is as a result. The blurb on his award suggests his notability is pretty local, albeit in a major market.

Local Internet User (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have coverage from Colgate University, from which he graduated, and a NYT wedding announcement. Both are arguably not independent. In general, I would say that journalists are notable either for awards, books, or coverage that received widespread third-party notice. In this case, I don't see any, and there is a consensus that regional Emmy awards don't count. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Empresa Aeronáutica Ypiranga

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

I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV about the company, only some articles on blogs. The CAP-4 Paulistinha manufactured by them seems to be more notable than the company itself. Svartner (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Portuguese, but possible sources: [79], [80], [81] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- as per findings above, though given additional searches seems scarce in returns given the time context, did find this though to help in the discussion.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The sources above are merely passing mentions. The first mention of the Tereza di Marzo Hangar, which was located near the site, the second one only shows the company's founding date in 1931. The third one is a bit more detailed, but it focuses on the EAY-201 aircraft and not the manufacturer. I don't see how that's sufficient for estabilish notability. Svartner (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Companhia Aeronáutica Paulista as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chempakassey Higher Secondary School, Bhoothakkulam

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

Fails NORG. Thilsebatti (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poothakkulam#Educational institutions, where it's listed, under ATD. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfumed Garden (radio show)

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

Currently the oldest article in the NPP queue, loaded with tags. I’d have redirected it but the last redirect was undone so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Popular culture, and United Kingdom. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG. Granted, the article in its current state is an essay full of original research and nonrelevant tangents, and it needs trimming and rewriting per sources. I mostly tried to avoid the many tributes published on Peel's death, and still found a number of sources that support notability as an influential and significant radio program.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] Schazjmd (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD ends in consensus to keep the article, I will take on the rewrite (unless someone else is eager to do so). Schazjmd (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Lord Reith of rock'n'roll". The Guardian. 3 May 1993. p. 26.
^ Wall, M. (2012). John Peel. Orion. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4091-0909-9. Retrieved 22 February 2026.
^ Jones, Alan (30 September 1967). "John Peel's Garden May Bloom Once More". Evening Sentinal.
^ Chapman, R. (2012). Selling the Sixties: The Pirates and Pop Music Radio. Taylor & Francis. pp. 122–131. ISBN 978-1-134-89624-0.
^ Lezard, Nicholas (29 October 2006). "Like, here is the totally far-out news from 1967, man". The Independent. ProQuest 336945404.
^ Sexton, David (29 October 2006). "Precious Petals of Peace and Love, From Frinton BBC 6 Music's The Perfumed Garden". The Sunday Telegraph. ProQuest 309522743.
^ Cavanagh, David (2016). Good Night and Good Riddance: How Thirty-Five Years of John Peel Helped to Shape Modern Life. Faber & Faber Social. pp. 31–44. ISBN 978-0571302475.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add Schazjmd's sources to the article. SenshiSun (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourced keep vote above. John Peel's last pirate radio show before joining BBC Radio 1 — covered in the Guardian (1993) and Wall's John Peel biography (Orion, 2012). Article needs a rewrite to strip OR but notability is clear. Sparks19923 (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The Lord Reith of rock'n'roll". The Guardian. 3 May 1993. p. 26.

[2] Wall, M. (2012). John Peel. Orion. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4091-0909-9. Retrieved 22 February 2026.

[3] Jones, Alan (30 September 1967). "John Peel's Garden May Bloom Once More". Evening Sentinal.

[4] Chapman, R. (2012). Selling the Sixties: The Pirates and Pop Music Radio. Taylor & Francis. pp. 122–131. ISBN 978-1-134-89624-0.

[5] Lezard, Nicholas (29 October 2006). "Like, here is the totally far-out news from 1967, man". The Independent. ProQuest 336945404.

[6] Sexton, David (29 October 2006). "Precious Petals of Peace and Love, From Frinton BBC 6 Music's The Perfumed Garden". The Sunday Telegraph. ProQuest 309522743.

[7] Cavanagh, David (2016). Good Night and Good Riddance: How Thirty-Five Years of John Peel Helped to Shape Modern Life. Faber & Faber Social. pp. 31–44. ISBN 978-0571302475.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]