User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.47.0-wmf.15 (3f954f5).

Wikipedia:Babel

ru

Русский — родной язык этого участника.

en-4

This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

de-2

Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

fr-1

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).

This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.

This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).

Википедия
Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию.

I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.

This user is from the planet Earth.

This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤

This user contributes using Firefox.

Picture of the day

Saint Patrick's Cathedral, Karachi

Photograph credit: Alexander Savin

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Español	Русский	Italiano	Polski
7,224,624	6,115,552+	3,143,197+	2,774,458+	2,626,953+	2,224,779+	2,131,108+	2,113,725+	1,981,937+	1,704,603+

More than 68,121,488 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,645,697 articles.

Russia

Chrain

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

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Horseradish § chrain, horseradish sauce

– FaviFake (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge to horseradish sauce

There's a separate article called chrain which basically duplicates horseradish sauce, which redirects to a section here. Maybe a new article could be made at the latter title to consolidate this, but it definitely shouldn't be duplicated. Horseradish paste could also be redirected there.

Google Books Ngrams for these terms show there's no apparent point in using a non-generic term. --Joy (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge as suggested to avoid the duplication. I'd agree that the section in Horseradish is becoming a bit overcomplicated, and it'd be better for it to eventually end up as a separate Horseradish sauce article (that being the common name in English) covering all the different varieties. (I'd also be fine with achieving this by a rename and a merge in the other direction.) Adam Sampson (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Judaism, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Merge: The "Horseradish sauce" section should become a separate article. The sauce is found in many European cuisines and it's not distinctly Central/Eastern European. --Mindaur (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

2SICH

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

WP:BEFORE only brought up a few blurbs and interviews in a substack or small music publications. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Russia. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete. There are two solid articles cited, but I couldn't find a third. Just short of the three minimum to pass our notability guideline. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG, but may meet it in the future.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Vozgian

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence for significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Kisseran (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Language-related AfD discussions. Kisseran (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Support I agree with @Kisseran on this matter; upon cursory inspection Vozgian has little secondary sources. SavageSquad67 (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

List of foreign footballers in European communist countries

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

This is a glaring WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH / WP:LISTN / WP:NOTDATABASE / WP:DEFINING violation. --Joy (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia (country), Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Yugoslavia. --Joy (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete as original research. The introductory essay about Football in the Soviet Bloc might be a notable topic, but this version is completely unreferenced, so probably not salvageable. pburka (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete because the list is OR. Khalitate (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT. C 679 07:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination; nothing to be salvaged here. – Vipz (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 18:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete. 99% unreferenced WP:OR, the 1% that remains is worthless. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete: A random, arbitrary list; delete per WP:NOT / WP:OR. --Mindaur (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Ligovsky Avenue

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

Article was previously WP:BLAR for not having any sources. It was taken to WP:RFD with no notification to the editor who instituted the BLAR and with minimal participation was overturned without addressing the sourcing problem. The redirect should be restored unless sourcing is added per WP:BURDEN policy which states [Content] should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
[Rfd Closer] The redirect was rejected at the RfD, so unless new or different arguments are presented here, it should not be turned back to redirect. One of the RfD participants offered to write the article, and whether it is a rewrite or an enhancement of the current content, remains to be seen. Direct user notifications are optional, but encouraged, and when nominated via a tool, it notifies the creator only, not the BLARer. Jay 18:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 23 shows WP:BURDEN was not raised or discussed, so the issue raised here is new. The RFD outcome was bad. It completely ignored BURDEN policy which explicitly says not to restore unsourced content. There are zero references on the page. The article can be restored when a future editor decides to improve it by adding references, but not before. RFD doesn't get to overturn other relevant policies, particularly when they weren't even raised or discussed at that conversation due to limited participation. RFD is not and should not be used as a workaround verifiability policy. That is abuse of RFD. 4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

BLAR is an WP:Alternative to deletion which can be reverted by any editor with or without discussion. When a BLAR is rejected, problematic content may be removed, or the article discussed for deletion, which you have done. RfD as a forum can decide the status of a BLAR. Jay 04:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:Verifiability policy still has to be followed. It's not optional. Read WP:BURDEN policy. You aren't supposed to restore material without adding inline citations. A completely unreferenced article should never have been restored at RFD.4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

A BLARer cannot push the burden on to the un-BLARer. Unverifiable content is a content matter which will have to be dealt with at the article or talk pages. If RfD finds that a BLARed page doesn't serve as a redirect, editors will have to use other means of removing or fixing content. You can always discuss scope or responsibilities of RfD at WT:RfD. Jay 05:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is pushing anything on anyone. What should have happened is the article should have been outright rejected as being unBLARed per WP:VERIFIABILITY compliance. That RFD was an outright bad call and should never have happened that way. It isn't defensible Jay. It was not a policy based choice. You don't restore unverifiable material. Period. 4meter4 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment. @Ymblanter: This discussion has not been formally closed. It isn't even eligible for closure for seven more days. You should not remove an AFD template until the discussion has been closed following AFD procedures.4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I am sorry, I followed a RfD discussion (which was indeed closed) and was not even aware of this discussion. I will now restore the template. Note that I started to work on an article and already added a source, plan to add more. Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
And may I please suggest now that you withdraw the nomination, it looks ridiculous at this stage. Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The article has been heavily edited so I am fine withdrawing per WP:HEY. The main issue was the restoration of a completely unreferenced article, and that has been sufficiently addressed by the addition of new material with inline citations. Just a note that this whole thing could have been avoided by simply working on this content in draft or user space and then simply overwriting the redirect with sourced material. There was never a need to go to RFD, and RFD should not have undone a BLAR of an unsourced page. That should never happen because of WP:V policy. Anyone can undo a BLAR if they address the substance of the reason it was BLARd in the first place. So all that was really required was writing an article with sources. 4meter4 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Any redirect may be taken to RfD as it is a discussion forum. It doesn't even require a WP:BEFORE like AfD does. What happened with this BLAR was as per the WP:BLAR guideline. There is also no harm in restoring a BLAR and enhancing it, which is what happened here. There is no requirement for a draft process which is for redirects arising out of AfDs. The forum for contesting an RfD close is WP:DRV. But if you wish to discuss process informally, there is the WT:RfD, which I already pointed out above. Jay 10:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Quit with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. You can repeat yourself but it doesn't make it true. RFD isn't allowed to not follow WP:V policy. You ignored WP:BURDEN, and that just isn't done. I note that RFD policy doesn't specifically address what to do with unsourced pages, and the reason that is so is because we already address that in policy language at WP:BURDEN. We don't need to write another policy. RFD shouldn't be restoring challenged material removed because it was unsourced. We shouldn't have to spell it out on the RFD page because it is already clearly spelled out at WP:V. I note too that RFD is not the forum equipped to handle content disputes of this nature, so its use here was a bad idea. 4meter4 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not ignore BURDEN, I just don't see it relevant in the case of a BLAR. BLAR is totally an optional substitute to deletion, and just one editor making a bold and hopefully uncontroversial edit to bypass verifiability or any other concerns with an article. If editors disagree with the ATD BLAR, RfD is a forum to take the concerns back to the article's space, unless the RfD discussion has consensus to delete the redirect and its underlying article content. Unlike what Burden says, an RfD close is not an editor restoring content, but an XfD forum enforcing community consensus. Jay 17:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That's WP:WIKILAWYERING. RFD was never meant to countermand WP:V policy, and arguing that a real consensus discussion happened with only 2 editors participating, and without notifying the editor who WP:BLARd the article is disingenuous in the extreme. There was no real attempt made here at building WP:CONSENSUS because the reasons behind the original BLAR weren't even discussed at the RFD, and notifications to involved editors weren't done.4meter4 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You don't like me repeating, so I'll just say read my very first comment here which talked about the notifications, my comment which talked about contesting an RfD close, and my comment above about discussing article content concerns at RfD. On your own quote You can repeat yourself but it doesn't make it true., you will have to introspect! Jay 07:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment. A source has been added. I've been WP:BOLD and removed the unsourced content and essentially stubified the article until editors are able/willing to add verifiable content. Given its only one source, we'll see if other editors think there is enough to justify a standalone page. I'd still be ok with redirecting per WP:NOPAGE, but am ok with keeping if that is the preference.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Pro-war Russian Z-literature

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

This article is borderline notable: Mediazona, The Guardian (relying in part on Mediazona), and this Verstka article are all useful. But there appears to be absolutely no wide-scoped academic literature charting this topic's rise even though the war has been going on for years, making me feel like this is a bit of a WP:REFBOMB situation. On the other hand, Z poetry exists on Russian Wikipedia. One wonders if this article should be converted upwards into a "Russian propaganda during the war in Ukraine" article, or downwards into focusing exclusively on the poetry aspects. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit: note that this article's creator is being discussed at WP:AI noticeboard#Hyrdlak. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps a limited merge to Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an WP:ATD? There could be an article written on Russian propaganda during the current war where much of this content could be included.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- @4meter4: That is also a great option. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Merge and then create the proposed article (which sounds like a great idea). I agree with 4meter4's option. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge to Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine -- out of scope for the target article. Fiction is not disinformation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete, possibly notable, but this article is so bad as to be useless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Russian imperialism and colonialism in fiction

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

I'm not finding support for the idea that this topic is notable -- there are certainly books written in similar molds, but scholars do not appear to have treated all of them from 1840 to 2019 as a single category worthy of analysis. Still, it's a bit of a synthfest and it certainly feels like it should be a notable topic, so I may be/would be happily proven wrong (even if we have to do some WP:TNT on the article as it stands). Otherwise, I'd like to see a merge of what's salvageable to Russian imperialism and Russian literature. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit: note that this article's creator is being discussed at WP:AI noticeboard#Hyrdlak. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Russia. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
We do have scholarly works with titles like "Empire and the Russian Novel" "Russian Imperial Presence in Literature", "Russian Literature and Empire: Conquest of the Caucasus from Pushkin to Tolstoy", "Romantic Imperialism in Russia’s Legitimizing of Conquering the Far East", "Imperial Knowledge: Russian Literature and Colonialism", so there's probably an article that could be written here without undue SYNTH, though I haven't looked too closely. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Suspected AI-generated articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete Unnecessary amalgam of two cited articles. Wareon (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Keep and stubify because @Eddie891: has presented sources that show this topic is notable. So stubify, and affix the presented sources, so there is the possibility to build a new article based on reliable information from reliable sources. Or, it seems there would be enough content to build a section or two for Merging content into Russian imperialism and Russian literature. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Eddie891 and The ed17 I am thinking it would be best to change the title of this article to reflect the presented sources. I am not sure what that would be though. And it cannot be done until the AfD is complete. So, I am thinking that the title would somehow have the words "Russian," "Empire," and "Literature" or "Fiction". I don't think colonialism is a good fit at the moment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- I do think if we keep this should be moved towards "Russian imperialism in fiction", there's not a ton to say on the colonialism. And it's almost more about "imperialism in Russian literature" than the other way around. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Draftify and require to go through WP:AFC per WP:ATD. Use of a large language model, WP:Original synthesis issues, and large passages of unsourced material show this article is not yet ready for article space. As a recent article creation, this is a perfect candidate for a move to draft.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Seconding draftify: There's an article here, but it's not ready yet. Also agree with the proposal above of dropping colonialism from the title. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 19:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Long-range sanction

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

WP:NEO. It's an interesting phrase, but by itself, it isn't notable as an encyclopedia topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:NOTPHRASEBOOK. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Deep strike campaign. With the article's co-title being "long-range strike campaign", I believe this would be a valid redirect with the template R from related word. What do you think @Dennis Brown and Zxcvbnm? Johnson524 14:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
It would need to be merged, not just redirected. I still oppose, however. It's a little-known one-off euphemism and would need much more coverage and popularity to be worth mentioning. It falls under WP:MADEUPONEDAY at the moment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
What is there to merge? I'd say nothing worth it that's not already in the target. While I still believe the article shouldn't be kept, I wouldn't say this is little known or recently made up either, with Zelenskyy using the term to describe his strategy throughout the past year of the war in 2025 and 2026: being commented on by media like Reuters and legacy media like The New York Times. Johnson524 02:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily against (or for) making it a redirect, it does get a lot of passing mentions, but that isn't enough for it to be an article, which would require significant coverage of the term, which is absent and not likely to happen anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Tobol Tatars

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

draftify - Absolutely not ready for mainspace. I have no idea why its draft was accepted. --Altenmann >talk 23:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I don't really see a rationale from initial nominator, but in my opinion it seems fine as an article - nominator seems to be suggesting it's presentability that's a problem but it seems presentable to me. If nominator would like to share a little more about reasoning, i'd be happy to check from that perspective. Jishara (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

OK. Why I think it is not well-referenced:

First ref "Tatar encyclopedia" says nothing, only mentions
Second ref Трофимова Т.А is from 1947 is unverifiable, possibly outdated.
Third ref Tataurov, Sergey is about Ayalyn Tatars whoever they are and tobolsk is mentioned in passing
The section group has one footnote at the bottom a text from online journal fr:Cahiers du monde russe of unclear peer review, does diccuss "Tobol’sk Tatars and their sub-groups: 1) Aremzian-Nadtsi, 2) Isker-Tobol’sk, 3) Babasan, 4) Ishtiak-Tokuz," But it does not support the article text other than suggroup names.
Genetics section:
footnote Volkov, Vladimir does speak about genes of dome tobol tatar groups, but all this genetics hardly contribute for notabilyty per WP:PRIMARY, and there is no in-depth coverage of thes groups per WP:GNG. All this genetci stuff is highly tentative and must be cited from generalizing sources, not from some reporta aboyt a dozen of testd persons

concluding: not adequately sourced, very poor WP:SYNTH in marginal areas, a kind of accepted only by people who do not have a possibility to look in essence. We draftified articles even better than this one. --Altenmann >talk 00:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying notability, then, is the concern, not presentability? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Very little improvement was done since submission]. --@Kepler-1229b: - Altenmann >talk 00:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep, it is long enough and well sourced.-Joseph (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- no it is not "well sourced" - did you read my detailed comments above? --Altenmann >talk 17:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  There are 7 references. It is way more than Wikipedia average. Joseph (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  When did refbombig become "well sourcing"? I can readily add a dosen more footnotes to texts that contain words "Tobolsk Tatars", so what? Please refresh your knowledge WP:GNG. --Altenmann >talk 19:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  
  PS. "There is lies, gross lies and statistics" the report you cited is of exceptionally poor quality I even do not bother to comment. --Altenmann >talk 19:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was very tempted to draft this, the citations don't make a lot of sense but there appears to be some sources out there. But as it stands I think relisting might gain a couple more sets of eyes. Experienced editors would be most welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep Going to reply about sources, cause I think you missed some of the information.

Tatarica.org - only mentions - agree with nom.
Alas, cannot find a way to access it, though we can know for sure that the monograph is real, cited, and gives a lot of context about the subject. See WP:SOURCEACCESS
"Аялынские татары, или о чём говорят деревья" Tobol Tatars as ethnic group is mentioned in 5 instances, mentioning Siberian Tatars living around Isker as qualified by ethnographers under "Tobol Tatars"; Tobol Tatar's close ties through marriage with Kurdak-Sargat Tatars, with the latter migrating to Iset; Mentions of Tobol Tatars in XVII century documents.
I do not understand how can nom have questions about peer review of Cahiers du monde russe - the journal has been published by EHESS and CNRS. The author is also quite well-known, see Nikolay Tomilov. Overall, this is the best source so far, discussing the subject in-detail. It gives plenty of context on internal structure (incl. sub-groups), ethnogenesis, later admixture, migration, inter-group position, etc. This is WP:SIGCOV by any reasonable reading.
"Валеев Ф. Т.-А., Томилов Н. А. Сибирские татары" could not access this one. Found another monograph with the same name, but published 4 years earlier (http://www.tataroved.ru/publicat/sib_tat.pdf). Same authors have contributed, and honestly this goes towards notability as well, giving more depth in a way that this publication is of the opposing school than Tomilov. Nice!
Ponomarev et.al. - Siberian tatars appear as comparison population.
Volkov et.al. - full taxonomy of Tobol tatars on page 66.

Overall, I still think that notability is not a problem here. I agree that the article is not in the best state, but for that, one should read WP:IMPERFECT, and maybe even WP:NEXIST. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

GAZ Volga

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

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Volga (marque) § Merge proposal

– FaviFake (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Volga (marque)

GAZ Volga page pretty much copies the content of this one with more information, the pages feel like duplicates of each other. Anon13131313 (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. GAZ Volga covers the original line of cars. This article is (or appears to have been intended to be) about the revived brand of rebadged Chinese models. There is no reason to make information more difficult to find by combining the two. --Sable232 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC) As an aside since I'm now part of this mess - dumping merge discussions into AfD is the single stupidest thing Wikipedia has ever done. It's an utterly asinine process and the reason why I don't propose page merges anymore. --Sable232 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I won't argue, there are six different cars that have Volga as the brand name (seven if you include Siber, which brand relation is a debate in itself) and it would be nice to have information about them listed seperately. I just couldn't think of many examples of car models turning into their own brands to find their pages. What also doesn't help is the fact that all the cars supposed for the original model page are listed here. Now that I think about it, old Volgas were definetely sold as its own brand outside of Soviet Union which is also worth mentioning in the articles. Anon13131313 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Sable232. Moreover, "GAZ Volga" is a longstanding article, while "Volga (marque)" is [I don't really know what it is, a fork?] created one and a half years ago. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Another question, when we split the articles, should Siber and the Chinese cars be removed from GAZ model timeline template? Anon13131313 (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Commment would a merge in the opposite direction work, per GAZ Volga being both the long-standing version and having more content? Having two articles about the same brand seems redundant per WP:DUP. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Others

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 7#redirects from ISO 639 codes 'os' and 'oss'

Draft

Shortcuts

Science

Star Stuff

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

A WP:BEFORE search returned no coverage or reviews of the show that constitutes SIGCOV. WP:BROADCAST, which mandates GNG, fails due to a lack of reliable coverage. The current source is WP:UGC and does not count towards that. The redirect target, List of programs broadcast by ABC Television (Australian TV network), should suffice here as an ATD. 11WB 💬 20:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Science, and Physics. 11WB 💬 20:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Newsome, Brad (2011-03-30). "Written in the stars". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2011-04-02. Retrieved 2026-08-12.
  Brad Newsome is "the streaming and pay TV critic for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age". The article notes: "The questions — and answers — that come out of those fields could hardly be more fundamental. Gary’s weekly radio program and podcast, StarStuff, is named after Carl Sagan’s famous observation that ‘‘we are made of star stuff’’. Sagan was speaking literally: every individual atom of carbon, oxygen, iron and sodium and almost every other element in our bodies was manufactured billions upon billions of years ago inside stars that died long before our own sun was born. ... Gary began StarStuff 13 years ago as a weekly five-minute space-news bulletin on ABC NewsRadio. The show no longer airs on NewsRadio but it has been picked up by some ABC stations and is available as a podcast. It is also rebroadcast by the US National Science Foundation as part the Science 360 news website."
2. Newsome, Brad (2006-05-18). "Late news for the starry-eyed". The Age. ProQuest 363801076.
  The article notes: "Space, as any good sci-fi fan knows, is the final frontier. It is also the first love of ABC Newsradio science editor Stuart Gary. And whether or not we are alone in the universe, Gary is not alone in his fascination with what's happening light years away from our little blue sphere. Every Saturday and Sunday night his StarStuff program has listeners across Australia turning their eyes to the skies. ... At ground level, Gary encourages children and adults alike to get a closer look at the wonders of the galaxy by buying a telescope. ... StarStuff takes its name from the astronomer and writer Carl Sagan's observation that "we are star stuff", in the sense that many of the elements in our bodies - the iron in our blood, for instance - could only have been created by supernovas. Gary, who has presented the program for seven years, says it has a big following, with ratings peaks of more than 9 per cent nationally."
3. Sharma, Mahesh (2010-12-02). "There but by the grace of the pods: podcasting". The Age. ProQuest 815110904.
  The article notes: "ABC radio show StarStuff has explained the age-old unknowns of the universe for more than 500 episodes but this milestone wouldn't have been reached without the modern phenomenon of podcasting. The program had been broadcast on ABC NewsRadio for years but a change in strategic direction two years ago forced StarStuff host and ABC broadcaster and journalist Stuart Gary to seek an alternative platform to continue reaching listeners. The ABC science and innovation unit stepped in, Gary says, and StarStuff was given new life as a podcast, a downloadable audio recording that can be played via MP3 players on computers and portable devices. ... More than 100 podcasts have been published as podcasts on the show's website, abc.net.au/starstuff, and Gary says the audience has actually grown since it went off the airwaves."
4. Javes, Sue (2008-07-28). "Radio". The Sydney Morning Herald. ProQuest 364221019.
  The article notes: "The ABC has been bombarded with complaints following a decision by NewsRadio to scrap the long-running astronomy show StarStuff. Blogs have sprung up urging disappointed listeners to contact their member of Parliament in a bid to have the "uneducated and ill-informed" decision overturned. ABC radio talks boss Margaret Cassidy says it's a matter of prioritising resources. She says StarStuff presenter Stuart Gary is needed to work on the main news desk five days a week and the specialist program does not fit with the station's rolling news format. The bloggers argue that NewsRadio has no trouble running block programming when it comes to sport yet can't devote half an hour a week to scientific endeavour. A compromise of sorts has been reached. The show will be offered as a podcast by ABC Science Online at abc.net.au/science/feeds."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow StarStuff to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Good finds. I concur that 1 and 3 are examples of coverage. 2 is WP:PROMO in tone and should probably be avoided. 4 is just news and is probably not necessary to include per WP:DUE. This shifts the needle a bit, but I don't know if these are detailed enough to satisfy SIGCOV. Thanks. 11WB 💬 13:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The third source covers podcasting and equally Darren Osborne's podcast. So insufficient notable for me, but can be mentioned on ABC News (Australia) for the podcasting part. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis. Regarding I concur that 1 and 3 are examples of coverage., I consider these two sources by themselves sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Combined with the other two not as strong (but still detailed sources), I think StarStuff clears the requirements. Cunard (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

They are examples of coverage, but not significant coverage, which is required for GNG. 11WB 💬 21:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Jim Stauffer

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

I propose redirecting because the content in this article is virtually identical to the content in Pacific Marine Mammal Center. Furthermore, the subject of this article is not notable outside of his work with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center. Gb321 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and California. Gb321 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Heliomonadida

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

I propose merging this article with Granofilosea because it is not used in the hierarchy as in Adl et al., 2019, and it is rarely mentioned in protistology works. Jako96 (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Organisms. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptofilida. — Jts1882 | talk 13:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I already did, thanks for showing me. Jako96 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge as described by Jts1882. All of these articles are too short and better covered in a single article. FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I withdraw this merging request as Plantdrew and Snoteleks were both opposing the Adl et al. classification in some way. I also withdraw the other merge requests, Cryptofilida and Leucodictyida. Jako96 (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Arignar Anna Government Arts and Science College, Karaikal

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 02:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Schools, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Deleteas it fails WP:NSCHOOL, has no SIGCOV or notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Pondicherry University#List of affiliated colleges, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Found nothing with SIGCOV in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 03:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Merrelyn Emery

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:NPROF. Lots of puffery added by a WP:COI editor might make it seem that way, but there's nothing there there. Could possibly be merged/redirected to Fred Emery as an alternative. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You are probably referring to me, as I was the one who wrote the first version back in 2021. I had no CoI back then at all, just a wish for her work to be noticed and for her page not to be redirected to her partner's page, as it did back then, which is an insult to a seasoned researcher and writer as she is.

Since then, I have worked with her, and when I wanted to update the page and create a more balanced piece (remove what you may think of as "puffery") I added the CoI and asked for approval of the update. I have now deleted it as I see no point in trying to get that approved, which proved to be right based on your request to even delete the whole page.

I'm not alone in arguing for having this page on Wikipedia and hope some will join the discussion. Since your request for deletion may have been initiated by my Draft:Open systems theory proposal and your opposition to that, I will probably not be able to sway you. In the meantime, I will update the page as planned to make it more representative, as I do agree that it is not there yet. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The page has been updated with more sources, and promotional language has been removed. This should make the WP:NPROF clearance more obvious. Also, Google Scholar shows sustained citation across the organisational development and action research literature:

Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1989, ≈274 citations),
Searching (1999, ≈190),
"The current version of Emery's open systems theory" in Systemic Practice and Action Research (2000, ≈165),
A Choice of Futures (with F. Emery, 1976, ≈156),
Barton, Emery, Flood and Selsky (2004) in Systemic Practice and Action Research (≈115),
"The search conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action" (with Purser, 1996, =694).

Six works over 100 citations in a small specialist field. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I did the updates to the page, which probably conflict with the WP:COI process, but I hope that is OK since there is an AfD, you are involved and there is full disclosure about my CoI and the ongoing AfC. More than happy to revert and create a draft page instead. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: authors of widely recognized concepts, both by public and by scientific community, are generally considered to be notable. There were concerns about promotional language of the article; the overly promotional language has since been removed. Jean Mélenchon (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Where is the secondary sourcing to establish this as a widely recognized concept by both the public and scientific community? Where is sourcing establishing the subject's role in this? Were you canvassed to be here? Sulfurboy (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in here, but since you asked for secondary sourcing, there are loads of its uses around the world (like Search Conferences and organisational redesigns using the Participative Design Workshops), especially in Australia and the US. A good source is this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1879091.The_Self_Managing_Organization_ In addition to the citations mentioned above from Google Scholar. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
This does not demonstrate significant recognition, at all. In fact, an h-index of 7 would demonstrate the exact opposite. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Scopus has a mere 17 of her articles. Not sure which as they are hidden behind a wall. She has authored or coauthored at least ten books, eight edited books, 35 book chapters, 60 journal articles, and contributed 29 institutional research reports, including several national studies. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~ back to Fred Emery. On Scopus I am not seeing anywhere close to the citations claimed above, with just 196 citations total and an h-index of 7. I'm also not seeing the significant recognition of either "open systems theory" or M. Emery as its co-developer needed for a pass of C1.
EDIT: seems to pass NAUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Why do you use Scopus? It has only 17 of her articles. See the numbers I've given above for her production and the number of citations on Google Scholar. Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
@Thjortel @BenAveling, because NPROF advises to use Scopus or WoS and against using Google Scholar for citation counts (bolding mine): The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. ...
A caution about Google Scholar: ... For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. ... In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources.[2] It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals.[3] Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only.
If you can find multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple of her solo-authored books, that would be more helpful for a NAUTHOR pass.
Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, is staggeringly sexist and patronizing. Just wow. JoelleJay (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
I'm very aware that Wikipedia sets the bar higher for female academics than male academics. I think 'multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books' is a bar that would rule out most academics. And, as per Wikipedia:NPROF, Google Scholar as prone to undercounting as overcounting, and can be used as a rough guide. Google Scholar is particularly compromised in this case because she doesn't have an account, which would have been helpful. That said, the top 5 results do seem to be the right M Emery, and have between 115 and 274 citations each, according to Google Scholar. The only journal among those five results is Systemic Practice and Action Research, which has an impact factor of 1.8. Springer report 56 and 35 citations for those two articles, about 1/3 of what Google Scholar reports. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Looking through Google Scholar, a lot of those citations come from the same two journals, Systems Research and Behavioral Science and Systemic Practice and Action Research, which possibly suggests significant impact but only in a very small field. All up, it's not nothing, this is not a field I'm familiar with, and it's tricky to compare impact factors between different disciplines. But. Compared to what I'm used to, and considering that this is over 20+ years, I can't build an argument for notability on citations. On the other hand, you could say much the same about Fred Emery's citation record if you only rely on Scopus Preview - it (wrongly) rates his h-number as being lower than hers. Citation count isn't everything. Her contribution to Open systems theory does seem significant. But is OST significant? I'm unsure that it demonstrably is. If we could quantify her contribution to Participative Design Workshop, that might be sufficient. Can we? Ben Aveling 22:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
I think we can. She has not only worked on theory and done action research, but she has also helped numerous companies in Australia and Canada, in particular, in their transition to self-managing organisations. The PDW is one area where her contributions have been substantial, the other being the Search Conferences that have been the topic of her most well-known book and have been used a lot around the world, even here in Norway. It has also inspired other techniques like Weisbord's Future Search (https://futuresearch.net/about/history/).

Generally, I think C7 should be an equally important criterion for keeping as C1. Documented applications of Emery's methods include large-scale regional planning by the U.S. Forest Service (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000); Project Australia national consultations; Torres Strait Islands community planning (Paton & Emery, Journal for Quality and Participation 19(5), 1996); and workplace mental health (de Guerre, Emery, Aughton & Trull, SPAR 21(8), 2008). NPROF is disjunctive. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Multiple empirical studies have determined Wikipedia does not set a higher bar for women academics (a recent study even found the opposite for women biologists). This is something I have also noticed across the NPROF AfDs where I have calculated the subject's senior coauthors' citation metrics to estimate the field medians.
Yes, "multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books" is supposed to rule out the vast majority of academics, because articles should be about highly impactful scholars and not the average professor. However, if Emery's books are as influential as claimed, it is likely that sufficient reviews exist and searching for those would be the best use of keep !voters' time.
The problem with the GS citations, as noted at NPROF, is that they are inflated by citations in non-academic or non-indexed/non-RS academic sources.
In my experience, trying to evaluate the impact of the subject's contributions to a topic, and the significance of the topic itself, in the absence of reliable citation counts is very difficult and rarely attempted at AfD. Fred Emery likely has escaped deletion attention due to his apparent pass of ANYBIO #2, although given he worked at the university that prepared his biography I don't think that should be given much consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
A couple of peer reviews for her books have been added to the page, by me and one other. For papers I assume the journals have covered that process. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Just got word that the Australian National University is preparing a biographical piece for publication on their website. Ought to be a decent sign of the importance of her work.

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Under what policy would a possible piece like this warrant a keep? This is WP:CRYSTAL at best. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

ANU is definitely not an independent source, so such a piece would not be acceptable as GNG coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite to make clearer her own contributions, rather than leading by saying she is known for working with someone else. It's hard to be sure what her h-index would be, but FWIW, it's going to be more than 7. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Merrelyn+Emery Ben Aveling 20:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
An extra point I would like to bring up concerns the suggestion to use WP:REDIRECT to Fred Emery (psychologist). It calls for targets that contain the information sought. Fred Emery's article does not document Merrelyn Emery's independent contributions — the two-stage model of active adaptation, her work on Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1993), the Search Conference monograph (Searching, John Benjamins, 1999), or the statistical methods (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000). A redirect would leave readers at a target that does not contain the material. Also, a redirect to Fred Emery here would fit a pattern noted in Wikipedia's coverage of women in science — redirecting the woman scholar to her male partner's article rather than maintaining a standalone biography. This concern is especially relevant where the target article does not contain the redirected subject's independent contributions. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Keep I have found more reviews of her books such that we now have two books, each with two reviews, which contributes to WP:NAUTHOR. I also found discussion of her work on the impact of television watching (actually the cathode ray tubes) on children, which is now in the section on research. In 1992, Marvin Ross Weisbord talked about her influence on search managers. Collectively this adds up to keep. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Finally, this is what I was asking for above. JoelleJay (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Synthetic colorant

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

See discussion below. The article is some student creation that duplicates mature, well-curated articles on dye and pigment. The proposal is that this article would disappear and the little useful or unique convent would be transferred to dye and pigment.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Chemistry, and Technology. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep I was prepared to scream "delete," but this article seems distinct enough from dye and pigment to warrant its own article. However, it needs a lot of work. It needs a massive amount of trimming, and I think a change of title to History of synthetic dyes or something similar would be appropriate, as the content is almost entirely a survey of the history of synthetic "colorants". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Comment "The discussion below" is here with a concurrent merge discussion. – The Grid (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Very weak keep. There is some overlap but these are distinct topics.

A dye is soluble in at least some solvents.
A pigment is insoluble (or nearly insoluble) in a wide range of solvents.
A synthetic colorant includes compounds from either of the above, but only those created in a laboratory setting.

In its current state, repurposing the article to be about History of synthetic colorants is also feasible. SVG-image-maker (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Convert to History of synthetic colorants?

As the initiator for the AfD/merger (which appears to be failing - I hadnt realized how many undisclosed chemists are out there!), I wonder if we can repurpose my initiative into History of synthetic colorants.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Rajiv Gandhi Arts and Science College

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, Schools, Science, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Pondicherry University#List of affiliated colleges, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Found nothing with SIGCOV in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Annai Vailankanni Arts and Science College, Thanjavur

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, Schools, Science, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Bharathidasan University#Affiliated colleges, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Additional searches didn't yield anything with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Shahin Khalilli

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

Article lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet WP:NBIO. Sources only about book publications and the books themselves. Yousiphh (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Social science, and Azerbaijan. Yousiphh (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Comment The books are enough for a pass of NAUTHOR if there are some reviews of them. Unfortunately the only source that indicates it is a review, [7], leads somewhere else. The sourcing is bad, but most of the text comes from [1] so is "OK". I am not sure here, the language is a barrier to my finding reviews, maybe someone can do better in which case it will be a keep.
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

2011 Pocahontas tornado

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

I propose to delete because this article is poorly sourced, with some paragraphs being completely unsourced, is poorly written (with some likely assistance from a LLM), and the tornado itself fails #1, #2, #3, and #5 of the WP:NTORNADO criteria, as it has no significant coverage, no lasting coverage, had no casualties, and did not significantly damage a town. All the content in this article is better covered by April 2011 Iowa tornadoes. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per above. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I am really baffled by this. Sharkeston (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Support — This article is not properly cited and fails against many of the outlined policies for Wikipedia articles. This is yet another example of this user abusing their power to move articles to the main space. Sobriquetical (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Heavy Support Quincy Gordon (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per above ~2026-43385-91 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Support - Per above, doesn't meet WP:NTORNADO. Also the existence of this article in the first place baffles me, as there is not only a tornado outbreak article about this event, but there is also a a in-depth article about the tornado family's impacts. There is no reason for a third article to exist, let alone one that is poorly sourced. TornadoEF4 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per above. Also, note the user is working on several tornado and tornado-related articles and should be advised on how to pivot to being productive instead of being disruptive. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete Likely LLM-generated, including emotionally charged language and superficial analysis, e.g.: The 2011 Pocahontas tornado left a prominent legacy within the meteorological community as a definitive case study in complex multi-vortex supercell behavior, specifically regarding the mechanics of satellite tornadoes out-rating their primary parent systems. and The people who lived in the house on one of these farms were very lucky. Other articles by the same user show signs of LLM-generated content as well, and all were created mostly in one go with no sources initially. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't make NTORNADO. Khalitate (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Plasma-powered cannon

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

Page on a hypothetical cannon with only one source which is a self-published book. Page was recently PROD & PROD2 which was contested without any explanation as to why. We already have more detailed pages (see Plasma cannon). I don't see much here that should be saved that is not already better covered in one of the disambiguation pages. Fails notability and sourcing plus being redundant. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Science, Engineering, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy pings of @Swatjester, @Bearian, @Glane23 and @Graeme Bartlett; it is not clear (to me) who challenged the PROD. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete - everybody knows that we have never published original research. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Delete -- As the person who PROD'd it. I don't think the subject is significantly notable under another name either, but that can be written as a new article if that can meet inclusion criteria, though I suspect that is going to run into fringe science issues as this is not a real thing that actually exists as described. It also doesn't need a redirect from this term as there are zero reliable sources from what I can find linking the two terms, so even a redirect would be inappropriate.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Comment There was a reason for prod reversal given by @Plasma Gun Nut: here: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Plasma-powered cannon with three references. I have not evaluated the references or the requestor, but we should give the requestor a chance to prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
OK, if that link had been in the edit summary I might have held on the AfD. Plasma Gun Nut will have to both edit the page to improve it, and indicate why this page should survive when there are already pages such as Plasma weapon, Plasma railgun, MARAUDER, Electrothermal-chemical technology (and several SciFi pages). I am willing to listen. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep Hello it's me, the user who requested undeletion. Sorry for poor communication, I am new to Wikipedia and not familiar with all the etiquette, but I will try my best.

As I also acknowledged in my undeletion request, the article is indeed in a very poor state right now, starting with the name, which in my view should be "electro-thermal gun" or something similar, as that is the most commonly used name in the scientific and technical literature on the subject. "Cannon" would refer to large-caliber versions and "plasma-powered" is a functionally descriptive name, but is not commonly encountered in the literature, but it does feature in amateur project descriptions like this one so I think keeping the link to the old name intact is useful for some audiences.

Given the issue with the name, I would Move the article, but I don't have the ability to do that yet since my account is so new.

As for noteworthyness, I think the strongest argument is that the DDTC considers the technology important enough to explicitly regulate it under ITAR category II paragraph (d) by name. If electro-thermal guns were "fringe science", as @Swatjester fears, why would the government bother regulating the technology?

If the article is kept, I will rework it to try and build out a proper timeline of the development of the technology and reference it with peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject such as these two ([1],[2]) and technical references such as the General Dynamics and Rheinmetall patents.

Thanks for tagging me @Graeme Bartlett! Plasma Gun Nut (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, what I forgot to argue: The technology is functionally dissimilar from railguns such as MARAUDER, not having rails. It is also dissimilar from DEWs included under Plasma Cannon, as it doesn't fire plasma, only using it as a working medium. It sits somewhere between Railguns, having the electric power supply in common with them and ETC guns, sharing the gun bore with plasma injector/generator with them, but without the chemical energy supply. Plasma Gun Nut (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Plasma Gun Nut, if I understand your comment correctly, your approach would fall under what we call WP:TNT, i.e. Blow it up and start again with a different name. There is nothing magic about existing articles, and a lot can be said for not keeping poor ones.

Creating a new article or a major rewrite and expansion of an old one is not simple, particularly if you are not used to Wikipedia. For instance, that the DDTC page you cite mentions "plasma" once in IIe is not an extensive enough discussion to pass the Wikipedia notability criteria. It is worth reading WP:VNOTT and WP:42. These are policies decided by debates involving hundreds of editors over the years.

I think it would be a good idea for you to draft a new page using your WP:Sandbox. I suspect this will take you weeks. Most of the other editors on this page are very busy, so may not be able to help you. I don't know the topic enough to write, but would be willing to comment on your draft if you ping me. Once it is in good enough shape you could either submit it via WP:AfC (and ping the people here in case they will review it), or maybe move it to main if you have done some useful edits on other pages.

If you can rewrite the existing page in a few days then it would not be deleted using what is called the WP:HEY exception. I suspect this may be very hard to do. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply, I have read the relevant guidelines on notability now. Sorry for wasting your time, but I have one more question. Do you think a review/summary of the technical progress like this could count as secondary literature? I don't think the technology has been discussed much outside of technical circles except in amateur projects. Other secondary literature in the form of summaries and reports exist, like this, but they often mix electrothermal (ET) and other technologies, including electromagnetic (EM) and electrothermal-chemical (ETC) together.

Re: timeline. I think I could write a passable article over the weekend but yeah, it's questionable whether that's worth it especially if I don't end up including much of the existing article. Another option is to write a seperate chapter in the ETC page, since they are related and historically connected to the point that the american literature doesn't always seperate them cleanly. Plasma Gun Nut (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither is really a good secondary source. The way I judged that is by looking at both how many times they were cited, and how many references they had. From what I can see the first has been cited twice, the second once. Neither really indicates that the topic is notable. I went a little further and did a search using Web of Science. I found DOI 10.1109/20.559970 but that has only been cited 30 times and has 6 references, neither of which are good numbers. (I had a look at the Electrothermal-chemical technology page and the references there are also not that great for demonstrating notability.)

Sorry, but I think you need to do much more digging to find well-cited reviews which have many references and can act as secondary sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Maybe the notability hurdle is higher than what the topic can meet. Plasma Gun Nut (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete given this article having no ground to stand on in its current state, the fact that undeletion requester proposes an article with an entirely different title which means there's no reason not to just delete this one, and that there may not even be reliable sources for said new article as conceded above. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 03:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Recurrence Index

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

I propose merging or redirecting to CAPP-Seq#Selector design because this concept does not seem to be notable on its own. I found other articles which cite the source used in this article but the concept does not seem independently notable for an article. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Biology. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:45, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge to CAPP-Seq#Selector design. The article has only one in-coming link, and that is because the concept has limited application. Merging to that article seems reasonable.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Dual fluid reactor

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

Sources do not show that the subject is notable. Most of the sources either do not mention the DFR or are from the DFR's website. The only reliable source here as far as I can tell is the article from The New Times. The only other source that might be reliable here is the one from ruhrkultour.de but I cannot figure out what it actually is, but it appears to be not mentioned in any reliable independent sources, so I suspect ruhrkultour.de is not a reliable source.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 15:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources now. Definitely a notable project.

For a topic to be notable, there must be multiple reliable, secondary, and independent sources that give in-depth coverage of the subject. This article only shows the existence of one such source (the one from The New Times). Can you provide more such sources?

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 13:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Has been written about in multiple science publications (journals and books) such as the International Journal of Energy Research (IJER), another from IJER, Annals of Nuclear Energy, Volume 80, The Atomic Nucleus: History, Physics and Applications (2026, Springer), Free Global Cities: The Future Leaders in Migration and Public Governance (2025, Bloomsbury), Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium Energy (2024, Woodhead Publishing) etc. A basic search in google books and scholar shows this meets WP:GNG. Google Scholar has ten pages of journal articles in a search hit on this topic; most of which have the term "dual fluid reactor" in the title of the article. A WP:BEFORE was not done. 4meter4 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Unary coding

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging to unary numeral system because it is listed as another term for the same thing in the article and appears to be such. Knowswheretheirtowelis (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - The word 'code' implies symbols. Assigning a numeric value to the symbols is a subset of language. A character device is the foundation of computing which implies linguistic symbols that may or may not have numerical values but need to be read and written. Unbounded code also imply unbounded set of symbols. Base 10 or base 26 or base 256 can result in a limited code set that cannot accommodate multiple languages. 97d07dad-8ddb-4b7a-ab17-f4d4e7ca376f (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. The use of a trailing 0 in unary coding makes it have significantly different properties, in terms of coding theory, from unary numerals. In particular, unary coding forms a prefix code but unary numerals do not form a valid code at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Why could that not just be explained in the article if a merge were to be performed? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 15:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per mathematical reasons given by David Eppstein. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Technology Park Bentley

AfDs for this article:

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

Majority original research and unsourced info article for a run-in-the-mill park. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Australia. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn’t a “run-in-the-mill park”. If the article was properly written and sourced, it wouldn’t be considered for deletion. Elrondil (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: the first nomination, which was more-or-less based on the same or similar concerns, only closed less than three weeks ago with "no consensus". The standard waiting period before renomination in this scenario is normally two months. (No opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Indeed, isn't this enough for a speedy keep? IgelRM (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep part of the overall site was established in 1900 is heritage listed https://inherit.dplh.wa.gov.au/Public/Search/PlaceNoSearch?placeNo=02021 and was within the original for the creation of the forerunner to Curtin University. The other part appended to park was WA Government Deoartment of Agriculture land in Kensington. Gnangarra 11:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- comment...contiuation of reasonings I have been able to locate another 30 plus sources from various media outlets, government reports, and other reports held at the State Library of Western Australia but these are all paper resources and not digitised so they will require labour & time requesting and reading each in turn.this, i have yet to seek out other sourcing through additional Collections held by the City of Victoria Park, and Curtin University. There are further sources listed in the previous AFD both are behind paywalls, that will need further negotiations Gnan garra 12:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hurricane Brenda (1973)

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

I propose merging to 1973 Atlantic hurricane season because it, along with the season's other sub-articles, are all rather short, and could be merged into the season article. Check out Draft:1973 Atlantic hurricane season for what a merge would look like.

I also propose to merge

Tropical Storm Christine (1973) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tropical Storm Delia (1973) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tropical Storm Gilda (1973) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong Opposition to Merging: None of these pages are suitable for merger. They were each significant storms, and all are Good Article rated. They are also too long to merge without loosing major details. Your proposed omnibus article is clunky, and to include all of the information it should would need significant expansion, which would put it in violation of WP:Size. The way it is now is better for these, and other reasons. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

How are any of these significant storms? None of them have any lasting coverage. As shown in the theoretical season article, there isn't too much detail to merge. Each of the sub-articles have a lot of preparations (which are routine), and use a lot of words to not say a lot. Even though they are good articles, that doesn't mean they can't be merged. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merge I see what the nominator means to a point, but each of the individual pages meets the coverage standard to stand alone. The detail in the pages isn't too intricate or too passing and interested people would be served well by both the omnibus as it exists and the extra detail in the separate pages. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dizzycheekchewer: sorry what do you mean by "the omnibus"? Do you mean the season article? The 1973 Atlantic hurricane season is currently only 4,043 words. So the extra detail constitutes more of a content fork. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I mean the season article. I mean that right now, the detail in the articles isn't too much or too little and a merge would, theoretically either get rid of detail that adds value and/or overburden the season article. The current divide works best, imo. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dizzycheekchewer: but if you see the draft for what it would look like, such a merger would not overburden the season article, it's still a reasonable size. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think that version loses some of the detail from e.g. the Brenda article that is a) useful and b) not overdone in that specific context. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep pushing, but what information in the Brenda article is useful that did not appear in the theoretical merged article? One of the only things I excluded was Brenda's apparent high winds and rainfall along the northern Yucatan, which is not backed up by the available sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Caribbean, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Support Gilda | Neutral Brenda, Christine, and Delia. Except for Christine, all systems are below my personal threshold but, except for Gilda, not by a terrible amount especially for an event that happened over half a century ago. Gilda should have done something to Cuba but between the storm happening over half a century ago in another country with oppressive media restrictions and speaking another language, I do not know to get that information. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Even Spanish sources merely mention Gilda as having affected Cuba, but without any detail. I checked the first few pages of Google searches for [Tormenta Tropical Gilda 1973 Cuba] and didn't have any luck. Also for reference, Brenda and Delia are among [shortest good articles]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merging any, per Foxtrot620 and Dizzycheekchewer. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Asdfjrjjj: would you mind expanding your rationale? As I said, there isn't much content to merge in all of these articles, so please check out what a proposed merger would look like. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

To editor Hurricanehink: Fs! they all seem notable to me, and so warrant their own, detailed articles. Merged article looks pretty good!, but is less detailed than individual articles (naturally). Would prefer if merged article only has an overview of each system, w/ a link to main article for further details, and generally don't think we've gotta worry so much abt articles' short size (as long as they're not stubs, w/c these don't seem to be to me :) - rn, would really only change !vote if any failed WP:GNG or WP:SNG, but none seem to! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Merge for Christine and Gilda—Neutral for Brenda and Delia — Christine is a routine storm, easy merge. Even though Gilda seems to be a significant storm it’s extremely difficult to find information on Latin American storms outside of Mexico during this time period so it’s going to have to be a merge. Brenda and Delia may have room for expansion though, a quick search of Newspapers.com shows a good amount of results for those queries, I could look into whether those results come up with anything actually worth adding to the article but for now my stance will be Neutral for Brenda and Delia.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - meets WP:GNG - Brenda and other storms listed has significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support standalone articles. Asteramellus (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Asteramellus, the nom is proposing deletion based on WP:PAGEDECIDE, not notability. While the topic itself may be notable, the pages can also be merged per WP:MERGEREASON. FaviFake (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Support – the pages are indeed short and it is common practise to merge these kinds of article into the season article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The topic is notable and the content is worth keeping, just not as a separate page. FaviFake (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Flow arrangement (via WP:PROD on 17 January 2025)
Reiner Kümmel (via WP:PROD on 16 January 2025)
Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ace111.


2 August 2026
In the media: Union drive, most prolific editor make headlines AI's impact on Wikipedia, World Cup editing, and encyclopedia's place in public life. News and notes: Foundation rejects voluntary recognition of union, proposed board eligibility rules sharply restrict candidates Further: harassment allegations at Wikimania, and new RfC for Abstract Wikipedia. WikiConference: "Kurier, Signpost, wikipress: You can be a Wikimedia journalist" - Wikimania presentation by User:Noé Recap A recap of Noé Gasparini's Wikimania 2026 presentation on the variety of wikipress outlets In focus: Is Larry Sanger the co-founder of Wikipedia? A look over the years. Arbitration report: Think, and not just about content ArbCom continues business. News from Diff: Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2026! Wikimedians of the Year 2026 announced at Wikimania 2026 - Paris On the bright side: The beautiful game 2026 Men's FIFA World Cup, Wikimania music, and wikipress. Traffic report: Odyssey and Oyarzabal To take you in the sun to (Ithaca), to show you the World Cup, it's the time of the season for editing! Comix: Well-spotted You dasherdly—dash–dash−dash-dash!
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives