Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

12 June 2026

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

Purge server cache

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

No opinion on this AFD myself, but I recently closed an RM in which an editor wanted to delete this article. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment: This is the RM. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Abu Mansour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

After reading the article, it sounds like a fake story created by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to accuse Turkey of supporting the Islamic State. The 3 citations also seem unreliable. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

I'm not entirely sure on this one. All sourcing in the article is primary; there's not even a hint of reliable third-party source. Everything I could find was a passing mention or a how-to guide but this is not my area of expertise so it's possible there is coverage out there and I don't know what I'm looking for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and Software. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Hello HJ,
    I'm a contributor for the OpenAFS project and me and our project's core maintainer mmeffie have been committing updates to OpenAFS wikipedia page (albeit slowly, as time permits in our work schedule) to bring OpenAFS wikipedia page up to date.
    Apologies for the Infobox edit - I wasn't aware of the rule that external links are prohibited for our Repository.
    Our project's main website is https://www.openafs.org
    The project is still actively used in enterprise and community, so your request for deleting the wikipedia page did not make sense to me - prompting this reply. Is there perhaps a different area where software projects need to be organized on Wikipedia? OpenAFS is a distributed file system. I do see wikipedia pages for projects like Network_File_System and Ceph_(software) exist that we are seeking inspiration from to make our edits.
    I am still new to making edits to wikipedia however, so would like to learn more about what sources you would like me to cite - whether primary, secondary etc (I plan to research the difference for these this week for my own knowledge), so until then I do request that the request for deletion is "reverted?".
    Let me know if you have any questions, will be happy to clarify.
    Thanks!
    -G
    @Gsvolt Gsvolt (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    We need reliable secondary sources: someone else reporting on you. Geschichte (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Hello HJ and Geschichte,
    I have added a Bibliography section with citations to two books on the topic of OpenAFS which are great secondary sources of information according to: Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources
    OpenAFS has been cited in academic papers as well in the past. I plan to include a Papers section soon.
    Thanks!
    -G
    @Gsvolt Gsvolt (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    KEEP
    OpenAFS meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG).
    OpenAFS has been the subject of significant, independent, secondary coverage.
    Evidence of this includes:
    - On June 9, 2025, Daroc Alden (LWN.net Staff) published an article titled
    "The Second half of the 6.16 merge window: https://lwn.net/Articles/1023075/
    which announced that the kernel now uses generic security services application
    programming interface (GSSAPI) for the AFS Filesystem, allowing connections to
    manage encryption of connections to OpenAFS Servers.
    - In the book titled: Operating System Concepts 10th edition (ISBN: 9781119439257)
    Citation: Silberschatz,A.,Galvin,P.B.,Gagne,G.(2018).Operating System Concepts.United States:Wiley.
    Google Books Link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Operating_System_Concepts_10e_Abridged_P/VFV1DwAAQBAJ
    there is a chapter that specifically covers "Distributed-File Systems," in which
    there is an entire multi-page section dedicated to analyzing the architecture, caching mechanisms, and design of the
    Andrew File System and its open-source fork, OpenAFS.
    - In this seminal IEEE published article titled "Scalable, Secure, and Highly Available Distributed File Access",
    AFS creator M. Satyanarayanan from Carnegie Mellon University discusses AFS architecture.
    Because OpenAFS is an implementation of AFS, the architecture remains the same as described within this publication
    from COMPUTER magazine article from May 1990.
    https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/15-440/assets/READINGS/satya-ieee-computer-scalable-1990.pdf
    @HJ Mitchell @M kuhner @BhikhariInformer - I hope this coverage allows a more well-rounded perspective on the article for OpenAFS. Please share any other tips/advice you may have to improve the OpenAFS article. Gsvolt (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC) — Gsvolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply ]
KEEP: While the article does need cleanup, and the current list of submitted changes do need some work, OpenAFS is still available and in use. Several Linux distros do include OpenAFS packages (debian/ubuntu, gentoo, arch, etc.). It is a project that has been selected for Google Summer of Code projects. For historical reference, OpenAFS is the open sourced implementation of AFS that was originally developed at CMU and was later marketed by IBM (which opened source it). CheyenneWills (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Whether or not it's still in use is not relevant. We need to know if there has been third-party coverage of it to establish its notability. M kuhner (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
@BhikhariInformer @HJ Mitchell @M kuhner
KEEP
A few more sources for the OpenAFS article:
---
Title: Distributed Service with OpenAFS
Author: Franco Milichchio, Wolfgang A. Gehrke
ISBN: 9783540366331
Published: 2007
Publisher: Springer Science + Business Media
Book that describes a mtehod to organize a robust enterprise IT infrastructure
based on open-source software with mainstream hardware. Uses OpenAFS to illustrate
how to setup distributed services.
---
Title: Small patches get in!
Author: Peter Weibgerber, Daniel Neu, Stephan Diehl
Publish Date: May 10, 2008
Link to publication: https://doi.org/10.1145/1370750.1370767
Compares information from OpenAFS project with that of another open-source project
to assert that smaller patches in open-source software do get merged compared to larger
ones.
---
Title: Distributed File Systems
Author: Pavel Bzoch, University of West Bohemia, Czech Republic
Published: June, 2012
Link to publication: https://naos-be.zcu.cz/server/api/core/bitstreams/4f630397-f663-4358-b76d-c5482232e5bc/content
---
OpenAFS project is participating in Google_Summer_of_Code 2026 this year.
Link to the Google Summer of Code project page:
https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/programs/2026/organizations/openafs
Contributors work on pre-announced project work for 12 weeks and make their
contributions to their individual projects. These lay the ground work for being
inclusion in the project after maintainers get a chance to review it at the
end of the program.
---
Title: You really should know what the Andrew File System is
Author: Bob Brown, Former News Editor, Network World Magazine
Published: May 10, 2017
Includes a quote by the creator of Andrew File System sharing the fact that
OpenAFS continues to be an active open-source project and is in use at Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Gsvolt (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC) — gsvolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply ]
Link for NetworkWorld magazine article:
https://www.networkworld.com/article/963342/you-really-should-know-what-the-andrew-file-system-is.html Gsvolt (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Here's a look at the sources offered in this thread:

  • NetworkWorld article says the authors won a prize: the remainder of the article is an interview format (it just repeats what the authors said without analysis). This is not independent. (Also looks like it's a press release regurgitation site.)
  • Summer of Code is a good detail to have in the article but I don't think it shows notability.
  • The PhD thesis would be a strong source for notability of AFS, but all it really says about OpenAFS is that it's an implementation of AFS. There is no separate discussion of OpenAFS.
  • The LWN.net source mentions OpenAFS once in passing, less than one sentence, not SIGCOV.
  • I can't evaluate the book source, Google Books Search is only getting TOC. I'd like to know if it actually talks about OpenAFS or only AFS, with OpenAFS mentioned in passing as an implementation.
  • IEEE article does not mention OpenAFS, only AFS. Notability is not inherited.
  • "Small patches get in" uses the project that developed OpenAFS as data for reaching conclusions about development processes. It doesn't really say anything about OpenAFS as a piece of software beyond a bare-bones "this is a file system". Another one that is great to have in the article, but questionable for notability in my opinion.

From what I see here, I'd recommend merging to Andrew File System which currently mentions OpenAFS in passing; it could form the basis of a short section in that article. I don't see independent, substantial coverage of OpenAFS as an entity. But I acknowledge I am unable to evaluate the book sources, and will change my view if those talk substantially about OpenAFS and not just about AFS. M kuhner (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I believe that the entry for OpenAFS (an important implementation from at least a historical standpoint) needs to be kept separate from the entry for AFS (the technology and trademarked protocol) for the exact same reason that the entries for the Apache or Nginx web servers are kept separate from the HTTP protocol entry.
  • Andrew File System was originally developed at CMU. (Cite: Long Term Distributed File Reference Tracing: Implementation and Experience, Software: Practice and Experience, 1996)
  • The developers of Andrew File System formed a company, Transarc, to market the file system. This was a proprietary implementation and the source code was not available during this time.
  • Andrew File System is a registered trademark originally owned by Transarc and transferred to IBM when IBM purchased Transarc.
  • IBM offered AFS as a commercial product. This was a proprietary implementation and the source code was not available during this time.
  • AFS is a registered trademark still owned by IBM. (Cite: IETF RFC 5864, which explicitly states "AFS (a registered trademark of IBM Corporation)")
  • AFS is also a specific technology and protocol defined by the IETF. (Cite: RFC 5864). Currently the only available implementations of this protocol are the OpenAFS server and client, the AuriStor server and client (a proprietary fork of OpenAFS) and an AFS client, kafs, that is in the Linux source tree. The protocol dictates specific architectural features:
    • Communication via the Rx RPC protocol.
    • A unified, global namespace.
    • Mandatory infrastructure including a Volume Location Database (VLDB) and a Protection Server (PTS).
    • Client-side caching managed by server-issued callbacks.
  • The AFS implementation as developed by CMU => Transarc => IBM was open-sourced by IBM with a strict legal requirement that the source code/project could not use the trademarked name AFS. The name chosen to comply with this requirement was OpenAFS. (Cite: Government preferences for promoting open-source software, Michigan Technology Law Review, 2002)
  • The OpenAFS source code IS the source code that was originally developed at CMU and later developed by Transarc and IBM. At the time when IBM open-sourced AFS, the source code was a mature commercial product.
  • OpenAFS is actively maintained as an open-source project with ongoing contributions from a diverse community. While commercial entities provide a significant portion of recent commits to maintain compatibility with modern operating systems (such as the latest Linux kernels) and support enterprise deployments, these upstream contributions also include general architectural improvements and progress against a loose roadmap for new features. Furthermore, the project continues to receive patches from independent developers and outside individuals, including participants in programs like Google Summer of Code (GSoC). (Cite: - OpenAFS project)
  • Arla was a research project created when AFS was still a proprietary product. The goal was to build a clean-room implementation that used the AFS protocols. The server side (Milko) never made it out of alpha status. The Arla client was used in BSD and early macOS, but the project was eventually dropped due to user/kernel space context-switching performance bottlenecks. (Cite: Arla - A Free AFS Client, USENIX FREENIX Track, 1998)
  • AuriStor (formerly YFS) is a fork of the OpenAFS source code. AuriStor is a proprietary, closed-source implementation that was based on OpenAFS but extends the protocol and replaces legacy server technologies (e.g., replacing the legacy Ubik database with a Paxos backend).
  • kAFS is the in-tree implementation of an AFS client included directly in the Linux kernel (using the AFS protocol defined by the IETF). It is strictly a client and relies on native Linux subsystems like FS-Cache. It requires servers that implement the AFS protocols (which currently are only OpenAFS or AuriStor). (Cite: Using kAFS on Linux for Network Home Directories, USENIX Vault, 2020)
  • Efforts to migrate off AFS have been fraught with problems due to features that are uniquely executed by OpenAFS.
  • OpenAFS is recognized by the ACM as the continuing development of the Andrew File System. When the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) awarded the creators of AFS the prestigious 2016 Software System Award, the official ACM award citation explicitly noted that the impact of the technology continues today through the open-source project. (Cite: ACM Software System Award - David A. Nichols, Association for Computing Machinery, 2016. Quote: "AFS became widely used, and its development continues in OpenAFS.")
  • OpenAFS has been utilized as a benchmark in ACM peer-reviewed research. It has been used by researchers to evaluate the performance and compatibility of new distributed file systems and kernel architectures:
    • Evaluating Virtualized File Systems: (File System Virtual Appliances: Portable File System Implementations, ACM Transactions on Storage, Vol 8, Issue 3, Article 9, 2012). Researchers used OpenAFS as the baseline implementation to test the capability of running unmodified distributed file systems within isolated virtual appliances.
    • Evaluating Network File Systems: (A low-bandwidth network file system, Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2001). The researchers utilized OpenAFS as the standard to evaluate the caching and network efficiency of their own experimental file system.
  • While the legacy AFS protocol specification is mostly static, the protocol specification has seen active research. An example is the IETF draft specifications for RxGK (GSSAPI-based security for RX) designed to deprecate legacy rxkad/DES encryption (Cite: rxgk: GSSAPI based security class for RX).
  • Any research prior to IBM opening up the source code (e.g. any research published by CMU, Transarc, or IBM) would be directly reflected within the codebase that is now OpenAFS. For example:
    • The database replication and quorum algorithm, Ubik, developed and formally published at Carnegie Mellon University, remains the foundational consensus engine within the OpenAFS source code. While the core architecture described in the original 1989 paper remains intact, the implementation within OpenAFS has continuously evolved over the decades with ongoing maintenance, bug fixes, and performance optimizations by the open-source community. (Cite: Ubik: Replicated Servers Made Easy, M. L. Kazar, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Workstation Operating Systems, IEEE, September 1989, pp. 60-67.)
CheyenneWills (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Additional research paper on OpenAFS specifically:
CheyenneWills (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Walls of text are advised against as they are of no use to editors. Do you have sources that conform to WP:THREE? Geschichte (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Textbook Publication:
"Distributed Services with OpenAFS: For Enterprise and Education" by Franco Milicchio and Wolfgang A. Gehrke (Springer, 2007). ISBN: 9783642071720. Covers the architecture, implementation, and management of OpenAFS.
Academic Research:
"Improving the OpenAFS Security Model Without Client-side Changes" by A. Chernyakhovsky (2012). An independent academic paper from MIT that focused exclusively on evaluating and modifying the specific OpenAFS codebase and its security architecture (specifically upgrading the Rxkad security class).
Institutional Recognition:
The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) awarded the creators of AFS the 2016 Software System Award, the official ACM citation explicitly recognized the modern, distinct open-source entity, stating: "AFS became widely used, and its development continues in OpenAFS." CheyenneWills (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some comments here look strangely and similarly detailed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Merge to Andrew File System, mostly per M kuhner. I'm unconvinced by the arguments above, including the WP:THREE, that OpenAFS is meaningfully covered rather than continually mentioned in passing. The paper is really just about AFS where OpenAFS happens to be the implementation used, the recognition is the same. While I likewise can't audit the book, even if it was devoted entirely to OpenAFS (which I suspect it isn't from the reviews), it wouldn't be nearly enough as it stands. RaisedArizona (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Power Twins (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

No WP:SIGCOV, appears to fail WP:NSPORT. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 11:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Institute for International Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

I can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this organization. Their financial reporting indicates one full-time employee and continued activity until 2023. Brief non-independent description on page iii of this book. Some database context. May be mentioned in this book, which I was unable to access. No obvious redirect target. Note: not to be confused with the Harvard Institute for International Development. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Takane Ōkubo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Only significant coverage is on his works. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

How great is the coverage? With points 3. and 4. of WP:NAUTHOR, a creative can be notable by virtue of the notability of their works. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 02:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
List of hāfu in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

This is almost unreferenced (just three footnotes). None of the refs suggest a list like this merits WP:NLIST. This is just the usual WP:INDISCRIMINATE, MOS:TRIVIA/WP:IPC failure - the kitchen sink WP:ORish collection of all works that the concept of Hāfu appears in, in some cases in passing (as a secondary character etc.). I don't think there is any value in redirecting this to Hāfu#Hāfu_in_popular_culture, which has no context outside a see also list to this, well, list. Surprisingly, this was created as recently as 2022, but it resembles the poor standards of the early years of Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Comment - The final source that you provided a link for seems to be a discussion on real hāfu individuals and their appearances in media as actors and models, while this particular list that is up for discussion is just a list of fictional hāfu. Hence why I stated in my recommendation that any sourced information like this would be better suited to help expand the actual Hāfu article than support a trivia list of fictional characters. Are the other sources you found similar? Because actual reliably sourced discussions about hāfu individuals and their portrayal in media over the years is a valid subject that should certainly be covered in the main article, but is not exactly the kind of sources that would justify or support this particular list of largely non-notable fictional characters. Rorshacma (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Sri Ramkrishna Sikshalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Fails WP:GNG and NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Explain nominations instead of simply pointing at a policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Tarasundari Balika Vidyabhaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Fails WP:GNG and NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey @Filmssssssssssss You've made a small typo in GNG. Thought you might want to fix it. 🙃 BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 04:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY and explain how it fails. Especially when making numerous nominations, put in some effort.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Keshabpur High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Fails WP:GNG and NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY and explain how it fails.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Alb Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Previously failed an AfD three years ago. All available sources do not provide anywhere near SIGCOV, only verifying that he was on the team by listing him in the roster. While there is a blog post that discusses the player, the actual discussion does not contain any SIGCOV in excess of saying that the player was mentioned (sometimes in lists of other players) as having played well. Fails WP:ATHLETE for lack of SIGCOV in reliable sources. RaisedArizona (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Fails GNG and is non-notable in general. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Circle (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Declined speedy deletion under WP:A7 no indication of importance, however all references are either marginally reliable (TechCrunch), interviews with the founder or paid advertising.[1]. All content is WP:CORPTRIV and I can't find any sources that show notability per WP:NCORP. The title implies it's a piece of software when it's a company. Orange sticker (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Genevieve Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Notability is not WP:INHERITED. Lacks significant independent coverage and falls well short of notability. - The9Man Talk 06:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete per nom. Her first few Google reviews all seem to be database-type things (IMDB, Discogs) with the notable exception of a Jackson Family fansite. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Live Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Not finding WP:SIGCOV is secondary sources, appears to fail WP:GNG. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 09:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oblivy (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Indeed. I came to know about it when I was searching for a judgement. And, a Google search on the name "Live Law" leads to their own news on all the pages of google search. It seems to be notable but I wasn't able to figure out another independent sources so as to confirm the notability. Quikguy43 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
These two articles point to a WP:SUSTAINED issue, which is when an article subject only received notability-eligible coverage for a short time. This company's articles get cited, but I'm not seeing coverage of the company outside of that Kerala court dispute. If there's more out there suggest you identify them here and/or add them to the article (and post here to let us know). Oblivy (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
yes, I agree. both not deep coverage problem, and not during a prolonged period of time. two fails Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep As a lawyer, it has been a reliable source of legal news in India for over a decade. It would be better to expand and improve the article rather than deletion. It is one of the only two prominent legal news portals in India, the other one being Bar and Bench. Ar1201u1 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Weak Draftify as Ar1201u1 points out this is an important site. It has made news in trying to increase access to law. However, it simply does not have the sourcing. I have looked, and I can't find it. If someone can identify relevant sourcing the article will be there for six months, and if not it will be deleted. Seems like the only viable outcome here other than delete. Oblivy (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete per nom. It is tricky to access sources for news websites as they themselves fill the pages; so search modifiers have to be used in the Google search (this specific search excludes the Live Law's own website. A subject does not become notable because it's reliable and important (WP:USEFUL and WP:Subjective importance). It still needs to be notable on Wikipedia. Babin Mew (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Comment note that since this article was nominated and then relisted, on 6 June another article Live Law (Law Portal) was created. Plus article creator Quikguy43 has been vanished. Not sure what's going on, and not suggesting this is a matter that can be addressed at this discussion, just additional context. Oblivy (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • a 3-paragraph profile in the Oxford Digital First book seems non-independent: "Their mission is to make legal reporting more transparent for the people, and they want it to be accurate in facts and figures and accessible to the public for their betterment. They believe that for an informed citizen that can take abled decisions, it is necessary to strengthen the democratic foundations laid down by our Constitution through a more accountable judiciary system. They are committed to offering precision in terms of news quality and providing honest news without any alterations. Their value system is based on the preamble of our country’s Constitution. They allow constructive criticism, which further helps in the legal reform overall." These words seem promotional and lacking in critical analysis.
  • The one from The News Minute is not independent as it is entirely sourced to information provided by the company with no critical analysis. I'm not sure if News Minute is considered reliable media, but per WP:NEWSORGINDIA I think caution is required before accepting this as a WP:SIRS source
Oblivy (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Erik Linder (dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

This reads like a LinkedIn profile. Biruitorul Talk 08:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Explain the nomination. Relate it to policy/guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Kyekyeku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Available sources are mostly routine coverage and interviews, with no in-depth analysis. The subject does not meet NACTOR/NCREATIVE as 1957 (film), in its current form, does not pass NFLIM Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
1957 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Unable to find any reviews during my WP:BEFORE search. Subject fails WP:NFILM Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
BugHerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Typical corporate spam for a software company. The references are the expected deluge of press releases and promo junk recounting their funding rounds and such. Previously declined as a speedy. MediaKyle (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  • I looked at a couple sources. Lots of WP:CORPTRIVIA. The Designrush review looks suspiciously pay-to-play. The SmartCompany is essentially an interview with the founders. The Digiliterate review, which could be viable, is a dead link. Delete. M kuhner (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Expand 770 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Not notable. Article relies almost entirely on primary sources. The only non-primary sources are from Chabad.org which is not a notable news source. Yserbius (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Tuff (name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

I propose merging to Tuff (disambiguation) per WP:MERGETEXT and and partially WP:OVERLAP, Tuff (disambiguation) can simply cover the listed people under a separate heading. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep. There are more than enough entries to warrant a separate article. WP:MERGETEXT is not relevant as a dab page is not a "broader topic"; listing name-holders is just a compromise when there aren't enough entries to justify splitting out. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
@Xezbeth (courtesy ping) I disagree, there's only 5 (6, if you include "See also") entries. As an example, Christian (disambiguation) has a "People" heading and has 7 entries (excluding disambiguation entries for specific "versions" of Christian), yet, doesn't have a separate page for Christian (name). I think it'd be more suiting to have a similar "People" heading under Tuff (disambiguation) to encompass these Tuff (name). *post-reply clarification, I refer to "Christian (name)" as literally a page for people with only and only just the name "Christian", as the 7 entries are people of that 'category'; there's no page for Christian (solo name), despite 7 entries fitting that. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
That's a really bad example for you to use, since Christian (given name) and Christian (surname) exist; the 7 entries on the dab page are known only as "Christian". —Xezbeth (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
@Xezbeth Refer to post-reply clarification I added prior to your reply. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Merge per nominator's rationale and per their explanation above, doesn't seem excessively long and can fit in the main dab. FaviFake (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Strong Keep to allow the page to be expanded to include information about the prevalence of the name and its origins. If it is merged, it will eventually need to be undone when someone adds more info specific to the name. – Ike Lek (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Five versus seven right now seems doable, but since it's already split off, it also merits pondering whether there's WP:POTENTIAL for two things to happen - for more entries to be added to the name list, and for the name article to grow from more of a navigation aid into a set index with more content, like etymology, distribution, etc. --Joy (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment: I'm unclear if WP:BLPGROUP applies. If you have a clear understanding and an educated opinion, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×ばつ ☎ 14:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Keep - This article is good enough to be kept and standalone. So8LLingT (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Mario Pacilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Subject does not seem to meet notability criteria whether measured by WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT and no SIGCOV as far as I can see. BleachPuffin (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

In my opinion, there are sources with in-depth coverage, he had a distinguished spell at Lecce. [3] [4]. Svartner (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Can't keep and draftify at the same time. Which improvements with which sources? Geschichte (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Delete. Italian wiki sources are routine transactional blurbs. The Curiocity article is a Q&A with barely 3 sentences of extremely shallow stats-based coverage in its intro. The Pianeta Lecce article is literally just a prosified list of some of his stats (in the format of "he scored X goals and Y assists in Z appearances in [season] for [team]", no secondary analysis at all. JoelleJay (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Sue Saville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. A search of google news did not yield coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Internal Revenue Code section 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

A strange article. In some sense, yes, you're going to find information on it, but the same can be said for any part of the USC. Trying to break it up by section with excruciating detail on how the code is organized and such is horribly inappropriate and not how we generally cover laws on Wikipedia. WP:NOPAGE is key here; general information how about federal income tax works in the US can be, should be, and already is at Income tax in the United States. There are hundreds of sections in USC 26, none of which are more or less deserving of a dedicated article. This amounts to nothing more than a dump of one small part of the code, with no secondarily sourced commentary, or clarity of why it's being singled out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Law, and United States of America. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Speedy keep on procedural grounds. A nomination on this same subject was just withdrawn hours ago. Detractors do not get infinite successive bites at the apple, and should at least wait a reasonable time before submitting a new AfD. Furthermore, the statement there are various sections of the statute "none of which are more or less deserving of a dedicated article" is astounding. Of course there are more important and less important sections within the law, and this one is self-evidently the most important section, as it is the section that establishes an individual income tax in the United States. BD2412 T 18:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    It was an improper close by the nominator who decided to withdraw, since I had !voted delete. Rather than go through the hassle of trying to reopen it, I simply renominated, all perfectly kosher. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    If it was an improper withdrawal, then you should have gone through that hassle. Otherwise, what's the point of calling the close improper? The correct procedure at this point would be to close this discussion and take the previous one to WP:DRV. BD2412 T 19:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    And you shouldn't have posted an incredibly non-neutral notice at WP:RSL the first time, but hey, c'est la vie. We're here now; let's do this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    I stated the facts. BD2412 T 20:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete. Per WP:DYNAMITE. The subject (this specific section of US tax law) might possibly be independently notable enough to deserve it's own article, but if it is - which is down to those who support having an article to demonstrate through secondary sourcing, rather than merely assert - we need an article on it based, like any other legitimate encyclopaedia article, on what secondary sources have to say about the subject, and not a mere regurgitation of parts of the primary source. If people want to know what the law says, they can read it. Or read summaries from secondary reliable sources, if that is what they want. We don't decide for ourselves what is 'important', the sources do that for us. Call it WP:OR. Call it a contributor's personal opinion. Just don't kid yourselves this is the tertiary summary of secondary material on the topic that policy requires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep, but revise a lot. I've been wavering about this since the now-withdrawn first AfD was opened, and in the end, I found it decisive to look at how we handle pages on similar topics. I looked at Category:Internal Revenue Code and specifically, at each page within that category whose pagename begins with "Internal Revenue Code section", followed by a number, or number and letter. There are a bunch of them, of varying quality, and I'm not convinced that they are all keep-able, so I'm not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF. But a significant number of them seem to me to have been written in ways that satisfy the requirement for secondary source discussion, and that avoid the problems with WP:NOTGUIDE. It looks to me like this can be done. And when I check the "find sources" links at the top of this AfD page, it looks to me like there are enough sources out there to make this possible for section 1. Now, as the page is currently, it's clearly not encyclopedic, with those tables and lists, and it should not be kept in its present form. I suppose one could invoke WP:TNT as a reason to delete this version, and then create a new and better version from scratch, but one could just as well use the normal editing process to blank the page, and then start over. For AfD purposes, I feel the bottom line is that we should continue to have a page on this topic, because it passes WP:GNG, and can be rewritten to pass WP:What Wikipedia is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep Should've just reopened the last one, instead of starting a new one. I'm tagging @GreenC: and @Mariamnei: as the only two users that were there before, that aren't here yet. My argument for keeping this 20 year old article was: Category:Internal Revenue Code list how many of these have their own page, too much information to redirect/merge them into the main article. Obviously reliable sources give ample coverage of every aspect of the tax code, it taught in college textbooks for accountants. Dream Focus 10:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete per AndyTheGrump. And, as I said on my talk page, it's possible an article could be written about this subject but it would bear no resemblance to the content currently here so we might as well TNT. * Pppery * in solidarity 20:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • @Pppery: I strongly disagree with the assertion that an article on this subject "would bear no resemblance to the content currently here". An article on the imposition of an income tax should most definitely include a description of the basic provisions of the tax, and examples of the tables by which that tax is calculated. I have added one source and some details to this effect. What is currently there needs to be built around, not removed. BD2412 T 22:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
One additional comment on this subject: when I created this article, I did so at the title, Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. However, sources will tend to refer to this as "26 U.S.C. 1", or, given its fundamental nature, just as "section 1". This understandable makes it tricky to find sources, but obviously any work that is talking about how, for example, married couples can file jointly, is talking about this section. BD2412 T 23:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep A very obviously notable piece of United States legal code that had hundreds, if not thousands, of high quality sources going back decades discussing it and all the sub-laws under its jurisdiction. This is a fundamental part of the tax system in the United States. Silver seren C 19:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Note: @Deacon Vorbis, AndyTheGrump, and Pppery: I have added some sources and additional information about the section, which I hope will demonstrate to your satisfaction the individual notability of the section. Although it now seems likely that the article will be kept, I would be open to expanding the scope and renaming it to Internal Revenue Code part 1, which encompasses sections one through five, including some other elements of interest. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    I'd like to suggest getting rid of the tables, and adding more paragraph text. That would make the page less guide-like, and put more emphasis on commentary from secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    The section itself contains a lot of tables though, and I think we should have at least one in the article as an example of what those typically look like. BD2412 T 23:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Perhaps that could be done as an image. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    I have no objection to that, but I don't particularly see an advantage one way or the other. BD2412 T 23:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    I'm saying that largely as a way to lessen the tendency of editors to see the page as being a candidate for deletion. Having "things that show what the Code looks like" as images makes sense, whereas mimicking them in the main text makes the page look less like an encyclopedia article. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    @Tryptofish: I have added such an image, but I don't know that it is an even substitute for the textual versions, given that thumbnail images of text are not so easy to read. BD2412 T 12:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    @BD2412. Of the sources you have just added, which best demonstrates that this particular section of the Code is independently notable, and how does it do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Of these sources, probably the Pilzner article. It is important to understand that the marriage penalty (for which we have an entire article in itself) is primarily a consequence of this section, such that any discussion of the constitutionality or economic effects of the penalty at the federal level are discussions of this section. There are a number of other provisions that have their own body of literature, most evidently capital gains taxation, I just haven't gotten to these. BD2412 T 00:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    I can see nothing of consequence in the article that appears to be based on secondary commentary from Pilzner and which demonstrates that this particular section of the code merits a separate article. If we already have an article on the marriage penalty, isn't that where the tax law behind it should be discussed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    @AndyTheGrump: Can I correctly conclude from your comments that you are basing your view entirely on the current article content, and have done no research of the topic yourself? BD2412 T 03:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    I am under no obligation to 'do research' in order to verify your vague claims that content you've seen but not incorporated into the article establishes the independent notability of a particular subsection of US tax code. The onus is on you, as I assumed you understood when you wrote above that "I have added some sources and additional information about the section, which I hope will demonstrate to your satisfaction the individual notability of the section". AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Certainly, you are under no obligation, but per WP:NEXIST the determination of whether an article should be kept or deleted is based on sources that exist whether they are in the article or not. Searching Google Books and Google Scholar indicates that a substantial number of sources exist, but are only able to be viewed as snippets, or are behind paywalls. Nonetheless, sources are being found and added to the article as time allows, which brings to mind the adage: those who say that something can't be done should not get in the way of those who are actually doing it. BD2412 T 12:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Per policy, the existence of sources is insufficient to determine that a subsection of a broader topic (which is what this article is unquestionably discussing) merits a separate article: per WP:N, notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Looking at the changes only strengthens my delete !vote. Nothing significant has changed, nor has there been any acknowledgement of the NOPAGE issue I raised in the nomination; why does section 1 deserve an article over section 2 or 3 or any of the other hundreds? Why does this section deserve a separate article instead of basic coverage in a more general article, like we do with articles about other laws? I can only come to the conclusion that it doesn't, and this article should be deleted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    @Deacon Vorbis: Very well, then I will continue researching and adding sources. BD2412 T 19:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • My intuition upon seeing the article was delete and hence I nominated it for deletion. It seemed that there was a general consensus for keep, so I withdrew the nomination. Nevertheless, since the discussion has been open again, I have looked again at the article, and my instincts still say delete. I'm sorry for making an improper close. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 09:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Lots of good secondary sources a notable topic.
Key secondary sources:
  • Federal Taxation of Income, Estates, and Gifts by Boris I. Bittker and Lawrence Lokken. Often referred to simply as "Bittker and Lokken," this multi-volume set is widely considered the preeminent academic and practical treatise on U.S. federal taxation
  • Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation. Mertens is a massive, multi-volume treatise heavily utilized by tax practitioners, courts, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It offers an exhaustive, in-depth analysis of the law of federal income taxation, explaining the intent of Congress in drafting the Code and how the IRS interprets specific provisions
  • Authoritative/premier tax journals: Tax Law Review , The Tax Lawyer , Virginia Tax Review & Florida Tax Review
-- Green C 01:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • How do sources on US federal taxation in general establish that this particular section of US tax code is independently notable? What do the sources say that indicates that we need to have a separate article on this one specific subset of a subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    If you think that individual sections of the United States tax code are non-notable, why start by seeking deletion of the initiating section that sets up the whole of individual taxation? That is obviously going to be the subject of any text that indicates that a tax is due to be paid, because it's the section that established that. Why not start with one of the sections buried much deeper in the tax code, like, let's say, 401(k) or 501(c)(3)? BD2412 T 12:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Once again, you seem to be deflecting, rather than addressing the question being asked at this AfD - which is whether there is sufficient secondary commentary in reliable sources to justify a separate article on this particular subsection of the tax code. Nobody is disputing that US tax law as a whole is a notable subject. The matter under dispute is how to best cover the topic. And a reminder, per WP:N, that even when notability has been established, This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. A separate page needs to be justified, in a way that both demonstrates that sources treat it as a separate topic, and that Wikipedia doing so is of benefit to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    "Once again", Andy? I have, once again, provided sources and added them to the article. I have indicated that other sources clearly exist that demonstrate notability but are not sufficiently accessible to include in the article. I am actively working on finding accessible versions of these. BD2412 T 18:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Warren Hathaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Only one indepth source[6], not the multiple ones required to establish notability. All the other sources seem to be passing mentions, but no further reliable indepth sources as required to establish notability for enwiki. Searches are made somewhat more difficult because there was a New Brunswick lawyer of the same period named Joshua Warren Hathaway (born 1797), but that seems to be a different person. Fram (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You have made your vote, please stop removing information from the article, you have made 10+ edits removing paragraphs of text and sources, while advocating to delete it based on too little information. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
@New Yathrib - Fundy Historian: Perhaps I missed it, but where does it say I cannot remove unsourced content and improve an article that is up for deletion? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
There is not one unsourced sentence in the entire article, you are deleting sourced sentences claiming they are not notable enough for his article, then campaigning to delete the article...you can't be doing both. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep, along with other historical figures like Robert Pagan and Nathan Frink, he was rather prominent in the development of southwestern New Brunswick, Eastport Maine and the Passamaquoddy Bay - settling the region. Not every Penobscot Loyalist who moved to the area is notable enough for an arcticle, we can all agree, but those who went on to become functionally millionaires and owned multiple islands and were prominent in settling the area? Yes. It's also linked in five other articles. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Robert Pagan is notable because he has an entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Nathan Frink is notable because he was a member of the legislative assembly. Unfortunately this article does not meet either of those SNGs. The rest of your points here are largely irrelevant to a deletion discussion -- your best bet would be to try to dredge up more sources to bring to the table. I looked around but didn't find anything at all. MediaKyle (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete per nomination. The article's citations are all a mess. They also don't establish notability. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been filling in some of the bare url references and adding page numbers to the book citations, thinking that this might help in assessing the article. In the process I've found a number of places where the article's claims don't seem to be entirely supported by the citations. For example, Barto doesn't say that people named their children after him "long after his death" and Craven doesn't say he went to Eastport "in pursuit of marriage". Also, the majority of the sources, including citation 1 from the Provincial Archives, spell his name "Hatheway". The most extensive coverage is in the Craven book, which goes into some detail about his conflicts with another non-notable Justice of the Peace, but that's about it. HazelAB (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

As noted on the talk page, Hathaway/Hatheway is about half split - Legislature spells it one way, Petty spells it another, etc. It's part of what makes finding sources difficult. "long after his death" isn't in quotation marks in the article, but she's referring to the fact people in the region still use the name in reference to him at the time of her book, 100+ years later - and Craven says he went into Eastport, that he was married (off the top of my head a month after arriving) there, and that he then returned. The footnote is for the move to Eastport, it'd otherwise be two awkward sentences after each other. [removed incorrect reference] New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
"It should be noted the nominator here tracks my posts and routinely just deletes paragraphs" I do no such thing, where did you get that idea? Fram (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
With my apologies somehow by the time I saw this AfD, the top "Delete" vote was made by someone rather antagonistic to me in the past efforting to delete my works, and I (incorrectly) thought they'd made the actual AfD; I apologise for wrongly suggesting that was anything to do with you. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
No problem, thanks for checking! Fram (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep: I've been on the fence about this, but after seeing the article expanded over the course of this AfD I think it's worth retaining. I tend to believe that if someone takes the time to write about a man 200 years after he died, that's a good sign in itself -- to me, the main consideration here beyond the sources is whether the topic is encyclopedic. An article about an 19th-century Justice of the Peace is precisely the kind of biography one would find in a respectable encyclopedia. I hate to invoke OTHERSTUFF, but if we can cover every random p**nstar on the internet, but not this fellow, we may have a problem. MediaKyle (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    We have deleted most porn star articles years and years ago and severely tightened the restrictions (first via the separate WP:PORNBIO, then via the geeral entertainer rules) so that porn stars who haven't been discussed in the mainstream press are generally deleted. Most paper encyclopedia's didn't include most Justices of the Peace, which is a rather common function. Fram (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    Yes, and if all there was to say about him was that he was a JP, I wouldn't have !voted keep. But he was also a militia captain, merchant, and big-time landowner, among other things... The sources are not particularly strong, but there's a lot of them, with enough detail that a decent article can be written. The subject was clearly not a nobody. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia have covered far less influential people. MediaKyle (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Just to be clear, I think his role as a millionaire merchant trying to build up a rival to Saint Andrews, New Brunswick in the Fundy Isles, seeing himself "at war" with all the notable 'founding fathers' of the region is more his claim to fame than the JP appointment...although his JP appointment was absolutely wild and notable in its own right. He owned more businesses and invested in others, trying to undermine mainland authority and build up the Isles (of which he owned six islands), than the article lists right now. For those not from the region, these Isles tended toward informal dual-loyalty between US and Canada holding allegiance to both or neither equally. As with the Owens (who signed against Hatheway on the Ruggles Affair) declaring that the mainland has no right to invoke law on "their" islands, etc. Pagan and Wyer types played both sides, whereas Owen and Hatheway were fiercely partisan. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Faulknor-class flotilla leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

I propose merging to Almirante Lynch-class destroyer because the pages seem to heavily WP:OVERLAP with each other, as seen in their two ledes. FaviFake (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Keep Beyond the leads, the content differs in the Design section and in the Service History. It's not unusual for there to be some overlap in articles about warship classes, especially when they have been operated by different navies at different times with a common design but different configurations. Based on the content of both articles, if we were going to merge, I would suggest that Almirante Lynch-class destroyer is instead merged into this article, as the Faulknor-class appears more notable due to its wartime service with Royal Navy.
Dfadden (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Thanks. To be clear, you're still !voting to keep and have a reverse merge as your second option? FaviFake (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Yes, that is correct. Dfadden (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
NHS West Essex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Very non-notable organisation which existed for only a few years, nil non-primary sources cited, article is also full of trivia such as the section on the board which is essentially a directory Elshad (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Paquito (Mobile Legends: Bang Bang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Obviously fails WP:SIGCOV. no sigcov upon doing before at google search. Most of the sources that were used were trivial. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Kim Garam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBLP criteria with lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject other than controversy/departure from Le Sserafim's debut-related reportings and subsequent low-depth routine coverage tied to the same single-event cluster. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There is coverage from multiple independent reliable outlets (including Yonhap News Agency, OSEN, Korea Herald, and Star News) spanning both debut and post-departure developments. While much coverage is clustered around her departure, there are also later reports on subsequent public activity. I believe the subject meets WP:GNG due to sustained independent media coverage, and I will continue improving sourcing quality. Oreoiscool99 (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete per nom. Jjpachano (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep. Appears to satisfy GNG, with significant coverage which goes beyond one event, and which demonstrates she is individually notable. In particular, I am not aware of any guideline that excludes coverage of Youtube activities from GNG. Nor do those activities appear to be the same event as the departure, which was several years earlier. James500 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Francesca DeRosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete: Yeah, at this point it's pretty stubbish... at this point the article is NOT notable enough and does not have significant coverage (which is actually normal in a ton of forgotten BLP articles, via Special:Random), so um... what else? She even has an Instagram! (probably not her) Back on focus, this Google search result pretty much only shows um... one "reliable" source in page 1? IMDb is not a reliable source on encyclopedic text, see WP:IMDB. – SimpleObjects- 9 ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (🌎 CentralAuth) 00:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Delete: As the one who put the {{Notability }} tag on the article almost a year ago to give it time for more sourcing, I've seen nothing happen in that time. Even at IMDb, they show no acting roles in the last 12 years, and her résumé is pretty thin in acting anyway. Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? in 2008–09: pretty much her only notable claim to fame in those early years. And per nominator's rationale, I agree, no significant coverage outside of that or her acting. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Daily consumption of drinking water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

I propose redirecting to Drinking water because I believe that the article, Daily consumption of drinking water, is better as a excerpt in the article Drinking water than as a standalone article as it doesn't have enough information to be a standalone article. Even though the article may be notable, I don't find a lot of sources that make it a large enough article. It is better to add the rest of the paragraphs into drinking water. SVcode(Talk) 00:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

I propose merging to CSS New Orleans because of a lack of significant coverage of this vessel in reliable sources. Additionally, the sources which do discuss this vessel briefly generally discuss it in context with the CSS New Orleans. The two floating batteries were converted in a project, and the better sources available for this topic (most notably Canney's The Confederate Steam Navy) effectively treat the Memphis and the New Orleans as a sort of informal ship class. As the DANFS entry notes "The records are naturally skimpy on a unit of such small size," and Canney, Chatelain's Defending the Arteries of Rebellion, and Luraghi's History of the Confederate Navy give very little information about this ship and discuss the conversion together with that of New Orleans. I don't think this topic can really support standalone article, and the common practice for marginally-notable ships is to merge to an article for the ship's class. With sources largely discussing Memphis as part of the construction project which also produced the similar New Orleans, I think merging there is better than having a permastub. Hog Farm Talk 00:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Typical corporate spam, this time a software company founded in 2010. Doesn't appear to be anything good in the references to satisfy WP:NCORP. I speedied this under G11, and the tag sat there for quite some time before eventually being removed by a TA. MediaKyle (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /