User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.47.0-wmf.2 (ca938f9).

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

Tufted titmouse

Photograph credit: Rhododendrites

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Español	Русский	Italiano	Polski
7,184,958	6,115,290+	3,123,031+	2,758,921+	2,625,388+	2,219,318+	2,114,100+	2,101,243+	1,970,032+	1,695,447+

More than 67,405,633 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,595,567 articles.

Russia

Lev Tanengolts

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

Seems to be a badly sourced WP:BLP. Unable to identify. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:BIO. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: note that this has been tagged as potentially LLM-generated since November. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Roman Putin

AfDs for this article:

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

What is the encyclopedic value of having an article about a Russian businessman named Roman Putin? There was an article about him on the Russian Wikipedia, but it was deleted (link). IdanST (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. IdanST (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Tagging the former discussion participants:

Spinning Spark, Mat ty.007, APerson, Orlady, Laun chba ller, Jreferee, Lankiveil. IdanST (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Spinningspark and Lankiveil sadly passed away quite some time ago. Materialscientist (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep; rationale is a WP:USELESS argument. I have no opinion on notability.--Laun chba ller 11:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

While there's some coverage, it's not significant coverage per WP:GNG. IdanST (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Igor Shabalin

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

Notablity tag place. Fails WP:NACADEMIC,WP:NPROF. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know why the nominator calls him "potentially notable", because if he's not there at the age of 75 it's not very likely that he'll make it. Anyway, his present profile as a researcher is not impressive (h = 16 according to Google Scholar). Athel cb (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought he might potentially be notable as Russians tend to be very well educated and thought there might be more to it. scope_creep^Talk 18:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per failing WP:NACADEMIC criteria. h-index is too low. --SatnaamIN (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete. Similar to the nom, I have my doubts which is why I only tagged it back in March and did not AfD it. Unfortunately the page creator has not responded to the concerns. The page could do with some input from a native speaker, there is a 10% chance in my mind that he might be notable. I am very willing to change my vote with more information and/or WP:HEY edits.Ldm1954 (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

AlphaChip (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Small brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 08:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: No indication of notability and created by a now-blocked sock. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Artyom Korneyev

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

I don't see sources for notability meeting WP:BASIC here. The sources appear to be from the football team websites or basic news about signing/renewing of contracts. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 06:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Russia. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 06:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Contested draft. That is a bad action to take. Geschichte (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Chechen genocide

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

This article should be deleted because the death toll doesn't make any sense and the sources are poor, the claim that 400.000 chechens died is only used in one book and can't be viewed as real evidence for this and not to mention the circassian genocide was mostly targeted at circassians not at chechens or dagestani people, like i mentioned, the claim that 400,000 chechens along with dagestanis died is pure nonsense and only supported by one book. I did some research and found nothing about it. As I said, this is the only source that emphasizes this. Moltenn9 (talk) 08:23, 17 May 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 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - This nomination is falls purely within WP:Deletion is not cleanup. The 400,000 is only brought up once in a footnote in the entire article, so to claim because of that the whole article should be deleted is nonsensical. The article has over 100 references across multiple languages, including items published by academic publishers (~~including the source that the 400,000 number comes from~~). Then, as can be seen from the 'Further reading' section, there are even more academic sources that discuss this matter within the framework of genocide, including multiple articles published in the Journal of Genocide Research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, however one mistake i noticed is that the article claims it was "400,000" chechens that died which is very incorrect, "including peoples" of dagestan, which can be argued that 50% or more were Dagestani peoples so 400,000 chechen casulties is incorrect Moltenn9 (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If you take issue with that, you can change it, but you decided instead the whole article should be deleted because you take issue with one snippet of information out of an article of over 2,000 words that uses over 100 references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Having re-checked Richmond's book, while academically published, it in fact does not mention the number 400,000 as it relates to Chechens. I have removed the number from the footnote. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is absolutely not for advocacy or activism. Creating a whole article from shoddy sources is unproductive. NavjotSR (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Have you looked at the sources used in the article? How many of the over 100 sources are shoddy? And what parts of the article count as advocacy or activism? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Russian civil war in the Baltic States

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

Hodge podge of... something. Not even clear what the scope is intended to be (see page move history). With prose gems like "The Bolsheviks advanced like a huge brick wall. They successfully won battles, but later failed." Post-WWI military conflicts are covered in other places like Soviet westward offensive of 1918–1919, Lithuanian Wars of Independence, Latvian War of Independence, and Estonian War of Independence. Recommend deletion per WP:TNT. Renata•3 02:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Soviet westward offensive of 1918–1919; subject doesn’t appear to be notable on its own and in the article’s current form, but if we could clean up the prose and source it better, it seems valuable to have on the project. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 03:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Support merging referenced fragments. This may be notable, but overall it is a poorly referenced article that doesn't defend itself well on its own. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This article could be made to work, but we don't need it for the encyclopedia, so unless someone is willing to fix it then getting rid of it for now without prejudice to it being remade later seems like the best option. I was going to say merge the bits that are valuable into the most appropriate article for them to be in, like the editor above, but after looking at the article and the related articles there is nothing to merge. It's all already already covered elsewhere and in a better way. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 07:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree, there is nothing to merge. Renata•3 01:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolute Delete. A complex, chaotic period is given an absolutely bizarre title in an article with 2 citations. This does more harm than good. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - appears to be an ill-defined collection of synthesis and impartial non-encyclopedic commentary. ("Red Threat" "advanced like a huge brick wall" "Interesting fact: Why did the Latvians not help the Lithuanians in this conflict?".) Fails WP:SYTH, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
"Because the Latvians liked the Poles"!! It was bizarre to read a Wikipedia article take a turn into joke book terrain. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The article is bad but I disagree with Maltazarian: this is the kind of thing we need to bring together the various overlapping conflicts in this region. Contra the nom, the scope seems perfectly clear to me from the title. Srnec (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Principality of Chechnya

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

This article should be deleted because it is a historical hoax. It claims that a huge, unified "Principality of Chechnya" existed in the 16th century and conquered Dagestan, which is historically false. Furthermore, the text mentions wars with the Kalmyks between 1545 and 1555, but the Kalmyk people did not even arrive in the North Caucasus region until the 17th century. The sources are either fabricated or misused to create a fictional country, map, flag, and history that never existed in academic history. Liptink0 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Chechen-Gazimukh War

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

This article should be deleted because it is a historical hoax that creates a fictional war and a fake treaty. It claims that a 10-year "Chechen-Kazikumukh War" took place between 1541 and 1548 involving the Kalmyks, which is chronologically impossible since the Kalmyk people did not migrate to the North Caucasus region until the early 17th century. While the cited book by Amin Tesayev appears to be an academic publication, the article misuses this source to present local folklore, clan legends, and theories as established historical facts. In academic historiography, there is no literal consensus supporting a massive 10 year "Chechen-Kazikumukh War" in the 1540s. The most important thing is that the article contains a massive anachronism. The Kalmyk migration to the North Caucasus did not occur until the 17th century. Therefore, the article is a historical hoax by transforming folklore into a fictional geopolitical conflict and a state. Liptink0 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Olga Raevskaya

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

This is an AI-generated BLP. It was first generated and pasted into an userspace sandbox page, complete with OAICITES: Diff/1354167866. The text in the current revision in article space is more or less identical. --Gurkubondinn 10:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Suspected AI-generated articles. --Gurkubondinn 10:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Language, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: The Knight of the Ordre des Palmes académiques award can be given to up to 4547 annually so it's not an assumption of notability. 🄻 🄰 15:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per oaicites being a clear WP:NOLLM violation. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Even without the AI generation we do not have evidence of notability. Her citation counts are not enough for WP:PROF#C1, the Academic Palms is not enough for #C2, no other PROF criterion is evident, and all of the sources (taken at face value) look like the sort of primary sources that can verify claims but not contribute to WP:GNG notability. The obvious AI generation makes the case for deletion even clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep, as the subject’s long-term institutional leadership is also relevant under WP. Olga Raevskaya served as Chief Academic Secretary of the Academic council of Lomonosov Moscow State University for twenty-nine consecutive years (1996–2025), in addition to heading several academic departments. The Academic Council is the university’s principal academic governing body, making this a senior leadership position at the university-wide level. Smallhedgehog (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Note that Smallhedgehog has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
And if you look at the main sockpuppeteering account, Eraevsky (talk · contribs), on the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias, you can see that they have claimed to be someone with a similar name (Ravensky) as the subject of the article at AfD here. I'm using Firefox's machine translation because I don't speak Hebrew (or Russian), but it looks like Smallhedgehog was blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia for both sockpuppetry and concerns over COI editing. --Gurkubondinn 13:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Thank you for the feedback. The article has now been completely rewritten from scratch and carefully reviewed. All previously present AI-generated artifacts, formatting errors, and unsupported material, have been removed. The current version is based exclusively on verifiable sources, with references rechecked, the text substantially restructured in accordance, and sourcing requirements, and additional independent secondary sources added to address notability concerns. I respectfully ask participants to evaluate the article in its current revised form. Smallhedgehog (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: A lot of excessive detail indicates that this was done using an LLM. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 20:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
That is correct. The user has admitted that it was generated: Diff/1354338126. That means that the article fails NOLLM. --Gurkubondinn 20:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
~~Keep~~: I manually reviewed the article, independently verified all statements against reliable sources, substantially revised and condensed the text, and removed any questionable wording or formatting. The current version contains only source-verified information that has been manually edited. Smallhedgehog (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Struck repeated !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
I think this is the difference between the original version at AfD nom and the current version. Unless you can explain how you think you have "revised" the content, I can't see much improvement. The dates on some of the referencing code has been changed, the wording has slightly changed. What else have you done that makes it substantially your edits and not the llm? JMWt (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
@JMWt: you probably won't get a reply because the user has been blocked for sockpuppetry. See WP:SPI/Eraevsky. --Gurkubondinn 13:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Parom

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

This article has not been updated properly in years (since around 2013) and lacks proper citations. Additionally, this article lacks any notability. Unbreakify (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The single reference is from 2005. A vehicle which was "proposed" as of 2005 and has not garnered any attention since is not notable. I haven't found anything about it since 2006, and no indication it was ever anything but "proposed." (Be sure to distinguish from reuse of the name in a video game.) M kuhner (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hullo (social media influencer)

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

Non notable "influencer" with WP:BLP1E regarding the kiddie porn investigation. Fails WP:BIO, appears to be promotional. WP:ADMASQ. Very questionable referencing at best 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, Russia, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This subject is notable for the event that took place. Maybe instead of deletion, we could rename and rewrite the article a bit better to fit the incident? ReelCosmix (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom, fails WP:BLP1E, this person was not notable until they were arrested and charged, and no indication their charges meet WP:NCRIME either. MidnightMayhem (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Mayak Tyuvagubsky

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

Abandoned lighthouse article deprodded by Insider.

This is a lighthouse. That is what its name declares it to be. That is what is visible at the site. That it had a crew of 30 maintaining it, but who ceased to live there as soon as it was decommissioned, simply speaks to what it was.

It's status as a posyolok is irrelevant because that just means it is a rural locality used as a counting-unit by the Russian census, similar to census tracts and abadi, both of which are excluded by WP:GEOLAND.

The appropriate notability standard for a lighthouse is WP:NBUILD, which this clearly fails. Neither of the sources added are WP:SIGCOV. Based on this, on of the sources added is a Wiki-like WP:SPS project (cf. particularly the introductory bit about how it's a "people's encyclopaedia" and how "Lacking the financial means to publish the entire Dictionary, we decided to publish separate overview articles on the Kola Arctic under the title "Kola North. Encyclopedic Essays."", as well as the large number of people listed as having contributed to it). FOARP (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep by WP:NSETTLEMENT (legally recognized place, not like census tracts and abadi). 30 residents is not a lighthouse maintenance team, 1-2 people are enough for this. Even with families. And the lighthouse is still operational. This is not WP:SPS, see editorial staff of this project below (for example Doctors of Historical Sciences, Professors I. F. Ushakov and A. A. Kiselyov), also see this page at National Library of Russia. See also this ("Проживали там до 1972 года. Посёлок был местом захода рыболовецких судов для провизии, воды и ремонта рыбацких неводов." - "We lived there until 1972. The village was a stopover for fishing boats to get provisions, water, and repair their fishing nets.") and video. People simply moved because of lack of work. Also most small settlements will not even have sources of this level (2 encyclopedias). Insider (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're claiming it isn't like a census tract or an abadi, where is the evidence that it was anything but a counting place for population? Did it have any internal administration? No. Посёлок = rural locality in this context, not a village.

Yes, if you pay to publish something yourself, then it is a self-published source. That's self-evident. FOARP (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

So you're suggesting deletion, so try proving otherwise. I cited two encyclopedias that list it as a populated place. And посёлок = posyolok in Russian is always a populated place, whether urban (for example, Murmashi) or rural (like this one). But it's always a populated place. It's analogous to a village, of which there are many: selo, derevnya, stanitsa, stantsia, aul, etc. (see ru:Шаблон:Населённые пункты). Find anywhere in a reputable source that a posyolok is a census tract.

What does internal administration have to do with this? In Russia, it only exists in large populated areas (the closest ones are Murmansk, Severomorsk, and Teriberka). And it's not just a lighthouse (one building), as you say. I provided a link above that, according to memoirs, fishing boats were loaded with provisions and water here, and fishing nets were repaired. Now no one needs it, so people have left. Yes, this cannot be added to the article, since it is not an authoritative source, but it is enough to understand the general picture.

As for the website, it is electronic version of the book Кольский Север : энцикл. очерки / [сост. и общ. ред.: А. С. Лоханов]. — Мурманск : Доброхот, 2012. — 502 с. : ил., карты, портр.. The authors are listed on the main page of the website (25 PhDs in different fields of knowledge, journalists, art historians, and architects). This is definitely an reputable source. It's not freely editable website. It's just that it's based on a wiki engine. Insider (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep, the sources in the "Sources" section (at least the first four) represent SIGCOV. I understand that the nominator is cleaning up the mess made by a certain mass creator of empty stubs, but this article does not belong to this group (and was created by another person a long time ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment I will not comment on the notability as I don't feel comfortable assessing sources in Russian, however I will dispute the statement that 30 residents is not a lighthouse maintenance team, 1-2 people are enough for this. Even with families. When I was writing Aniva Lighthouse (another Lighthouse in Russia)) I found sources stating that it could house up to 12 lighthouse operators (presumably multiple people per shift and 3-4 shifts per day). If you add families into the mix, then 30 people does not seem outside the realms of possibility. Giulio 01:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the usual historical interest in lighthouses. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

24 km Gorkovskoy zheleznoy dorogi

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

The location is very clearly a small train station. That's what can be seen at the location, that's what the RU Wikipedia article describes it as being. That's what it's 1-person population is consistent with. That's what even what the place-name ("24th Kilometre of the Gorki Railway") declares it to be. However it fails the relevant notability standard for a railway station WP:NTRAINSTATION due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. FOARP (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:NSTATION. –dlthewave ☎ 18:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Not meeeting WP:GEOLAND. Geschichte (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Obviously. No presumed notability by virtue of WP:GEOLAND because it's a train station, and it fails WP:NSTATION. It's just another one of these Russian census artifacts. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 03:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

5 km, Perm Krai

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

No evidence of notability under WP:GEOLAND or any coverage beyond statistics. Appears to be a railway station which was presumably used as a landmark for census purposes. –dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. –dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - This is one that I had already looked at as part of my review of these failing railway station articles. Appears to be just a railway station within Palniki, for which we already have an article, that was used as a point to count people around. The appropriate notability standard is WP:NTRAINSTATION which it obviously fails.

The sources here are 1) a map that I cannot open, but it should be noted that maps are excluded from showing notability, 2) some kind of file in .php format that I also cannot open, 3) a database of post-codes. None of these sustains a notability pass under GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The second link is an Excel spreadsheet with a hierarchical list of locations and populations; this locality is listed on row 1598, under "Сельское население" ("rural population"), as "станция посёлок Пятый км". There's no additional text associated with the locality. Omphalographer (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

So apparently just a counting-unit for the census. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep It had 328 residents in 2010 and 13 streets. It is not a train station, but a settlement created around it and named after the station. The site of the district lists it as a separate settlement. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
...that site, in machine-translation, literally lists it as a "populated area" under the name "Palniki village station 5 km" in a long list of other localities. It's exactly what we said it was - the railway station of Palniki, not an independent settlement in reality. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The site says, Населенные пункты: ... поселок станция Пальники, поселок станция 5 км., which translates to "Populated places: ... village station Palniki, village station 5 km." So "5 km" is listed as a settlement and is separated from Palniki. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This is very clearly another Russian census artifact, it's literally called "5 km". It doesn't qualify for presumed notability by virtue of WP:GEOLAND, it fails WP:NSTATION and obviously cannot be said to meet the WP:GNG in any way. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 03:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Zhemchuzhnaya

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

This is a railway station. That is what the article declares it to be, that is what can be seen at the location. The population reported for this location (2 in 2010, 3 in 2002) is also consistent with the live-in staff of a railway station. There is no evidence that anything but a railway station has ever been at this location.

The RU Wiki article includes the claim that a Soviet airship crashed 19km away from the station, but this clearly does not help the notability of the location since the crash did not happen at the station.

The appropriate notability standard for a railway station is WP:NTRAINSTATION which this clearly fails.

The article is padded out with irrelevant sourcing that also does not help the notability of the location. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: A railway stop, with two people living there, north of the Arctic Circle, is not notable. The crash happening 20 km away could be notable, this blip on the map isn't. Heck, the source citations are longer than the article; we don't have enough to show notability for this place. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - No evidence of notability under WP:NTRAINSTATION. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG. Added sources: 3 books, of which 2 are encyclopedias. You can also add information about the last observation of the airship SSSR-V6 OSOAVIAKhIM here (newspaper clipping). Insider (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Reaffirm delete vote. These sources simply repeat the same information (I.e., that this is a railway station with a population consistent with a single railway station) without providing significant coverage. For example one is simply a list of postal addresses, but having a postal-address does not confer notability (else every building with one in a world would be notable). A one-sentence mention in a regional dictionary saying "railway station of the Okt. railway. Situated 39 km south of the town of Kandalaksha. Until 1938 – part of Karelia" is not WP:SIGCOV and thus cannot sustain a GNG pass. The other reference (Dobrohot) is the same - a bare mention - but based on this is also a Wiki-like WP:SPS project. Changes in the region within whose jurisdiction the railway station fell is not coverage of the railway station. Coverage of the air-crash is again just a bare mention of site, and not significant coverage of the site. FOARP (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Postal addresses? Apparently you're talking about an administrative division? This is important for the rural locality. The station (ru:Жемчужная (платформа)) itself has long been abolished, and now it is replaced by a railway platform. The rural settlement with type station (ru:Жемчужная (станция)) has existed for more than 110 years, and currently consists of about 7 courtyards, the platform Zhemchuzhnaya, and a telecommunications tower.This is not WP:SPS, see editorial staff of this project below (for example Doctor of Historical Sciences, Prof. I. F. Ushakov), also see this page at National Library of Russia. Well, in general, for a better understanding. Stations in Russia are not given the status of a settlement just like that. For example, three neighboring stations to the south and two to the north are not rural localities. And the stations have been serviced for a long time by visiting employees who are not part of the population. I don't really understand why, for example, WP:NSETTLEMENT doesn't apply here. Insider (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
"Rural settlement with type station" is a train station. Yes, a postal address database does nothing but show that a location has an address. "about 7 courtyards" - are courtyards automatically notable?

WP:GEOLAND/WP:NSETTLEMENT explicitly rules out census tracts - that is, units used only for census-counting - which this is an example of.

An encyclopaedia with no publisher, instead published by the people who wrote it (cf. their discussion of not having the money to publish it), is an WP:SPS. Even if it weren't, the coverage in it doesn't rise to WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
No, as in the case of Mayak Tyuvagubsky, you are mistaken. It is not census tract, it is legally recognized place, as required by WP:NSETTLEMENT. The number of yards just shows that this is no different from other settlements. There is the train station Zhemchuzhnaya (ru:Жемчужная (платформа)), and there is a populated place (ru:Жемчужная (станция)) that includes train station. See also d:Q24258416, d:Q1782540 and d:Q27062006 for different with d:Q55488. For example also see the station Mamontovo, Rubtsovsky District, Altai Krai (over 500 people in the best years). The status is identical. There are many sources indicating that this is a populated place, but so far none have been cited for the fact that this is a census tract.

I have already written about the encyclopedia (and there is also a second one) here. I repeat. It is electronic version of the book Кольский Север : энцикл. очерки / [сост. и общ. ред.: А. С. Лоханов]. — Мурманск : Доброхот, 2012. — 502 с.. The authors are listed on the main page of the website (25 PhDs in different fields of knowledge, journalists, art historians, and architects). This is definitely an reputable source. It's not freely editable website. It's just that it's based on a wiki engine.

I also added three newspaper articles about this place. Two of them (Брысов А. Жемчужная: На малой станции сойду... // Октябрьская магистраль. - 1986. - 19 ноября; Капустин А. Жемчужная // Нива. - 1994. - 18 августа), as the name suggests, are dedicated only to it and nothing else. Insider (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
@Insider:, could you describe the contents of the two newspaper sources that you've added? I'm having trouble locating them online. –dlthewave ☎ 23:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
@Dlthewave I couldn't find them on the Internet. They can be obtained from the Murmansk State Regional Universal Scientific Library (proof). Insider (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
@Insider you are adding articles that by your own admission you haven't even read, as sourcing, based simply on titles including a common Russian word (Жемчу́жная) meaning "pearl". FOARP (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
@FOARP If you open this page (at the official website of the Murmansk State Regional Universal Scientific Library and signed by chief bibliographer of the Center for Local History M. A. Oreshko), you will see that the articles are dedicated to this place. Not abstract word (Жемчу́жная) meaning "pearl". Insider (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
The response appears to be an automated output of everything even mentioning the term, and the mentions don’t appear to be about this location unless you believe Soviet partisans were operating hundreds of miles behind Soviet lines during WW2. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
You're mistaken again. This is not an automatic issue. The book talks about the WW1 and the Russian Civil War, not WW2. 1919 year. Insider (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree with FOARP, the details about administrative changes don't contribute to notability. The zeppelin crash isn't directly related either, I would hesitate to even mention it in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 05:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Also to the above, for the legally recognized place, see:
- Реестр зарегистрированных в АГКГН географических названий населённых пунктов на 24.02.2026 Мурманская область by Rosreestr: type of object: ж.-д.ст.(нп) = train station (populated place). In doc only populated places, this is in contrast to the full registry of geo objects (where there are train station (stop) 0039455 and populated place 0039456). Also Будасси and Капраево are train stations, but not populated place.
- Общероссийский классификатор территорий муниципальных образований (classifier): Населенные пункты, входящие в состав муниципальных образований Мурманской области = Populated places that are part of the municipalities of the Murmansk region: 47 530 000 174 - 7 - ж/д ст Жемчужная
- Административно-территориальное устройство Мурманской области: [Населенные пункты, входящие в состав административно-территориальных единиц = Populated places that are part of administrative divisions]: 12.18. - 47 202 000 017 - сельский - железнодорожная станция - Жемчужная.

Insider (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"train station (populated place)" is a train station. This is exactly the same as the GNIS system which also registered many locations as "populated places". The fact that it's indexed on a number of different tables is neither here nor there, nor is the inconsistent application of terminology.

And we note that despite the splurge of supposed references, that you have not read to see whether they actually say anything about this location, rather than about the Russian word "pearl". Running the partisan references through machine translation I just see passing references to this location as exactly what it was: a railway station.

For example: "As of July 1, 1920, members of the party cells of the stations of Kandalaksha, Zhemchuzhnaya, and Kovda were registered with the Murmansk Regional Committee of the RCP(b), while the villages of Kandalaksha, Kovda, Knyazhaya Guba, and the Kovda timber mills were registered with the Kemsky Committee." Which strongly indicates that this was not a village, but a railway station.

Or in another example: "The Prince-Killers also set out that night, but we have no information about their military actions. Only from the accounts of some surviving partisans do we know that the railway tracks were damaged in several places, as were the switches at Knyazhaya and Zhemchuzhnaya stations". Again, we're talking about a railway station, mentioned in passing. FOARP (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"train station (populated place)" is a populated place with status train station (the same historical status as a selo, derevnya, stanitsa, posyolok, aul, etc). I'll repeat myself. For example also see the station Mamontovo, Rubtsovsky District, Altai Krai (over 500 people in the best years). The status is identical. That's why these documents make no distinctions between them, only their status. But all of these are legally recognized populated places. Some of these stations gradually changed their status and became towns (Uzlovaya). Others, on the contrary, abandoned. There are currently 7 courtyards, in which 2 people are registered.

Regarding the issue of sources, I see no reason not to trust the chief bibliographer of the scientific library. Only articles related to the subject are listed. This is evident from at least two of them having an digital version. This is also evident from the article titles. Two of them are dedicated directly to the station, others at least have mentions. Also 2 encyclopedias, other books. Fits the WP:GNG. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here are 5 materials dedicated directly to the place. Insider (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

They need to not be passing mentions, but these clearly are since they only mention the train station (and that is exactly what it is) in lists of trains stations. FOARP (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep as a legally recognized settlement. The GNG also appears to be met. The suggestion that the titles of the listed works are not about the station, but about something related to pearls, has close to zero chance of being true. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
A “settlement” with a recorded population of 2 people, and no evidence at all that substantially more than that has ever lived there. FOARP (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Still, this is legally recognized and meets [GEOLAND. The population of Kandalaksha, the district center, dropped from 54,080 in 1989 to 28,438 in 2023, so it is not unreasonable to assume that this place had more people living there in the past. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see at WP:NSETTLEMENT mentioning the population as a criterion. On the contrary it says: "even if their population is very low". Insider (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
It states that it has to be an settlement. It provides a separate classification for railway stations (WP:NTRAINSTATION) and for individual facilities (WP:NBUILD).

A classification that is in reality just a train station, that has a population consistent with the workforce of a train station, that is universally described as a train station - not as a village or other settlement even in 1920 - is a train station.

What kind of "settlement" has a population that can, and almost certain does, live in a single building?

Also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averinsky where these same arguments were made and it closed as delete. FOARP (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
No, you're wrong again, they don't live in the same building. You can view the available photos on Wikimedia Commons (File:Станция Жемчужная.jpg, File:Станция Жемчужная с составом.jpg - only the northern part of the settlement), satellite images, and other photos.

Averinsky is a bad example, if only because it is a khutor (≈ hamlet) with one building. Although it is an legally recognized settlement. There's more than one building here (I counted 7 residential buildings). Compare it with the legally recognized settlement - station Pezhma. Then suggest deleting the article "Mamontovo", it has the same status. Insider (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Bogatyr, Kursk Oblast

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

There simply isn't anything at this location. Even the roads marked on Google Maps don't appear on the satellite photographic view - this appears to be simply wooded hillside near some fields.

The population of zero in 2010, and 9 in 2002 is consistent with a single building or temporary structure once having been here. The appropriate notability standard for a single building is WP:NBUILD, which this fails.

The name of the location means "hero", which makes this a very common name. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - No evidence of notability under GEOLAND or GNG. Sourcing consists only of census records, statistics and distance calculations. –dlthewave ☎ 15:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep by WP:NSETTLEMENT as populated, legally recognized place. See sattelite map on the Google Earth (buildings are visible on 2012/2014 maps). This case and the Golevka case show well that it is pointless to look at an random sattelite map. Insider (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Are mere buildings, evidently temporary since they're no longer there, notable? FOARP (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Gamma Music

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

Hello everyone. I came here from the Russian Wikipedia after noticing that there is also an article about this music label in this section. Having identified significant issues in the Russian-language version — including concerns about notability, sourcing, and overall content quality — I believe similar problems may also be present here. In particular, the lead and the “Activity” section appear to duplicate content from the Russian article.

There are serious concerns regarding sourcing. Some references appear to be fictitious or do not support the claims made in the text. More broadly, the article does not seem to meet the General Notability Guideline, as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the cited references are news items about artists in which the label is either not mentioned at all or only briefly referenced as a distributor, which does not meaningfully establish notability. Links to company directories and the official website are not sufficient for this purpose, and sources such as IMI appear to function more as databases than as independent analytical coverage. There is also, for example: [1], but its reliability is questionable.

Additionally, similar issues observed in the Russian article — such as the use of loosely related sources to support broader claims — may potentially be present here as well and could warrant closer review.

In light of the above, I suggest discussing whether this article should remain in this section. Skepsiz (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Music-related AfD discussions. Skepsiz (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Following up on my previous comment, I would like to clarify that I was somewhat mistaken in referring solely to the General Notability Guideline, as there are also specific criteria for organizations and companies, this does not change the substance of the concerns raised. In fact, the relevant provisions out even more stringent requirements for establishing notability, particularly in terms of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Therefore, the issues outlined above regarding the lack of such coverage and the nature of the cited sources remain applicable and may, if anything, be reinforced under these criteria. Skepsiz (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would argue for a merge here, but given the article quality concerns above, probably the most prudent course of action is to redirect to Zvonko Digital, its parent label, without moving any content. Chubbles (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I support the nominator. I reviewed the sources wit the help of google translate, and they are all really poor and not RS (none of them). Most of them are basically trade-news items or company lists, blogs, passing mentions. There is no in-depth coverage. Nobody writes about the company directly, sometimes stretched or used in a misleading way whether intentionally or not on purpose. Overall, this is just a collection of different links that have little to do with the article itself. Because of that, I do not think a redirect is needed here. The article can simply be deleted. Xunnita-toro (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to carry out the merge/redirect if it helps move things along (though I might be a little slow in editing next week). Chubbles (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Golyevka

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

There is nothing at this location. There is also nothing with this name for miles around that I was able to find. The location is a lonely stand of trees next to a dirt road. There is no sign that anyone ever lived at this location - no houses nor ruins can be seen there.

Even if this place exists, it is, as the RU Wikipedia article describes, a "personal subsidiary farm", which is to say an individual farm. The reported population is also consistent with that. The appropriate notability standard for a farm is WP:NCORP or WP:NBUILDING which this palpably fails. Alternatively it was some kind of temporary structure or camp, but again this would not be notable.

The way this article is padded out with algorithmically-generated content is also concerning. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Fails NBUILDING. –dlthewave ☎ 18:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

leteeNot a notable location. SenshiSun (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
See this sattelite map (buildings are visible on it, there are 13 of them in total). Keep by WP:NSETTLEMENT as populated, legally recognized place. Insider (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
It's a farm, that's what the it's classification is, that's what the population is consistent with, that's what you see in those pictures. Evidently temporary in nature also, since it's no longer there. FOARP (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Classified by whom? By you? It's not farm, it is деревня = village. 13 buildings with courtyards now (more before). The village has not gone anywhere and still exists to this day. See map. Insider (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Gidatlinsky Most

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

There is nothing at the location in the article, particularly, there is no bridge (most). EDIT: the author of the article has updated the location in the article from where it used to be to that of Gidmost discussed below.

There is a single large building with some smaller out-buildings next to a bridge some miles from the location, labelled "Gidmost". Possibly these are supposed to be the same place, but also possibly not. Even if they are the same place, the transient nature of the population at this location and the presence of just one building of any significance there suggests that it is not an actual settlement but may be just e.g., a hotel. FOARP (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. FOARP (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - FYI the locations for these stubs were pulled from a source with ~1 mile precision. I'm on mobile at the moment and can't easily pull it up, but one of the other sources should have coordinates that match GMaps. –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Searching on Yandex, the Gidmost location appears to be an individual service-station. This would explain its transient population.

The appropriate notability standard for a business is WP:NCORP which this obviously doesn't pass. Alternatively for an individual building its WP:NBUILDING which this also does not pass. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - No evidence of notability for this business. –dlthewave ☎ 05:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Tears of Mankind

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Their albums has been reviewed by Metal.de ([2] and [3]). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Good find, thanks. I honestly don't know if only two reviews from the same source satisfies the 'multiple published works' criteria at WP:NMUSIC, so I'll wait for at least one more comment. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Two Metal.de album reviews are not enough to establish a standalone article on the band. They give some reception of individual releases, but not enough independent coverage to write a stable encyclopedic overview of the project, its history, significance, or wider reception. Without more substantial sources, this remains a WP:NMUSIC/WP:GNG failure. Khinkali (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

We are discussing its notability in the Russian Wikipedia. There's a review on Metal Storm - 1. The band's label lists several reviews from various sources that may help establish notability - 2. The label's notability is not clear enough, too. BadMoodMan Music is an imprint of Solitude Productions; while Solitude is a major name in doom metal, we are struggling to find third-party coverage for it. Ludovix Gumboldt (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment Found some more coverage, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], not sure what quality most of it is of.★Trekker (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the 17 new sources listed above, only one is already generally considered reliable. Chronicles of Chaos (webzine) is considered generally reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and reliable for at least opinions of reviewers at WP:RSN. None of the other sources are mentioned in any capacity at either RSN or WikiProject Albums/Sources. I have neither the time nor the relevant experience within this project to assess all the other sources individually. The Chronicles of Chaos sources is a seven sentence review of one of the band's albums. So regarding sources already accepted as reliable, that brings the tally of sources to three reviews; two from Metal.de and one from Chronicles of Chaos (webzine). Damien Linnane (talk)

Others

Draft

Shortcuts

Science

Igor Shabalin

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

Notablity tag place. Fails WP:NACADEMIC,WP:NPROF. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know why the nominator calls him "potentially notable", because if he's not there at the age of 75 it's not very likely that he'll make it. Anyway, his present profile as a researcher is not impressive (h = 16 according to Google Scholar). Athel cb (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought he might potentially be notable as Russians tend to be very well educated and thought there might be more to it. scope_creep^Talk 18:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per failing WP:NACADEMIC criteria. h-index is too low. --SatnaamIN (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete. Similar to the nom, I have my doubts which is why I only tagged it back in March and did not AfD it. Unfortunately the page creator has not responded to the concerns. The page could do with some input from a native speaker, there is a 10% chance in my mind that he might be notable. I am very willing to change my vote with more information and/or WP:HEY edits.Ldm1954 (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sagar College of Science

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Odisha. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this has been tagged as completely unsourced almost since its creation in July 2011. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Swapan K. Gayen

AfDs for this article:

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

Don’t see much here to establish notability as per WPːACADEMIC. Also most sources are primary and not independent of the subject Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Physics, Bangladesh, United States of America, New Jersey, New York, and North America. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per previous two AfDs consensus here and here. Notability is not temporary. --SatnaamIN (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I guess that what we look for in terms of citations has changed, but he is below what is generally a pass of WP:NPROF#C1 at AfC or AfD in physics in 2026; an h-factor of 32 with 3.6K citation is low for the high citation areas he works in. I confess that I am surprised by the prior AfD statements that he passed WP:NPROF#C1 back in 2020, particularly as his citations must have been lower. I would say that his citations are at about the level of an associate professor in an R1 US Physics Department. He is quite competitive at the full professor level for the R2 University he belongs to. Note that I see no mention of a Chair anywhere, plus there would need to be strong justification for a chair at an R2 University to qualify for C5. To complete the case, being a member of a society is not a qualification for C3, I saw no awards in his CV that might contribute to C2 or SIGCOV.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping of @Russ Woodroofe, Kj cheetham, and David Eppstein:Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

h-index says "after 20 years a "successful scientist" would have an h-index of 20". He has been for more than 20 years and now a full-time professor, SatnaamIN (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

We have pages on notable scientists, which is very different. (And Hirsch's numbers quoted in that page are way off in 2026.) Ldm1954 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment Flyingphoenixchips, please do not make short AfD justifications such as this. A proper case with policy based justification for the relevant notability criteria (here NPROF) is needed, as well as a WP:Before.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: User:Ldm1954 what you just did here? And where is your signatures? --SatnaamIN (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Your vote was lost in an edit confluct, as were my signatures. I restored everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I find his Google Scholar profile respectable for a middle-rank scientist, but in no way enough to make him notable. In general I agree with Ldm1954's analysis. Athel cb (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: [[[WP:NPROF#C1]] syas "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well." --SatnaamIN (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The 2nd nomination closed as a keep partly because it was far too close to the first nomination. The 1st nomination did not end in a resounding consensus. I !voted keep at the earlier nominations, but I do think we're expecting somewhat higher citation counts now than we did in 2020; Ldm1954 is also surely is better at evaluating track records in physics than I am. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep. Seven publications with triple-digit citation counts is still enough to push me to the positive side of borderline for WP:PROF#C1. I don't think NYAS membership counts for #C3, though, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Well yes, I agree that the specific forsterite laser papers are quite foundational to Cr:forsterite as a tunable near-IR solid-state laser medium... but out of the seven you quoted, three are not standard research papers. one is a US patent, another is a trade-magazine feature in Optics and Photonics News, and the other an Annals NYAS proceedings piece with discussion. Of the remaining four, are the chromium-doped forsterite lasing papers I mentioned which are also from the same group in 1988-89, so they in a way reflect one collaborative result rather than sustained independent impact which to me does not really seem to count towards C1. Gayen is not first author on any of the high-citation works and plus this field of his especially it being applied physics is already a high citation one, so this is to be expected. Also at this point Gayen appears as a middle-author research associate early in his career, this specific citation trace to one collaborative project of his, rather than to a solely independent body of work. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. :Hey apologies @Ldm1954. I was using my phone so couldn’t quite summarise based on Wikipedia:BEFORE in length, but thanks for summing it all up beautifully. Just adding on, physics is generally a high citation field so his metrics (h-index 32, 3,670 total cites) are respectable but to be expected. C1 typically requires evidence of clear impact above the field average in general. So far there is No major awards, named chair, or distinguished professorship, so C2 and C5 are definitely not met. He is described as a "member" of APS, OSA, and NYAS rather than a Fellow, so C3 does not apply (ordinary membership fyi anre open application). Serving as department chair at CCNY does not satisfy C6, either as generally this is for university-level leadership (president, provost, etc.). Full professor status alone is not sufficient under Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and the sourcing is also extremely thin… a faculty profile, a thesis record, and a Google Scholar page, none of which are independent secondary coverage for WP:GNG. There is not much available online either. As I see it this is just another case of Wikipedia:Too soon well yes he is on the trajectory but not notable yet… As of now it will make sense to delete and recreate it if he passes the guidelines. I’m just surprised the other AfDs passed without more scrutiny. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Physics is not homogeneous enough to say that it is a high citation field without being more specific. To get a better feel for his research impact I tried a Google Scholar search for forsterite (a repeating and specific keyword in Gayen's publications) and found most of the top citation counts to be in the low triple digits, comparable with Gayen's top publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  David Eppstein, he works in experimental solid state physics/materials science which are both high citation fields. For instance, look at the last two of his research areas in GS ( the first two are too narrow), nanoscience and nonlinear optics. Forsterite is a compound of not that major interest; perhaps try olivine, rutile as two more common compounds, and perovskite as one of the most important. However, in general compounds are much too narrow topics. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  N.B., more common is the chemical formula, e,g. see TiO2 where there are a good number of papers with citations in the thousands. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Capillary action through synthetic mesh

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

The article has no in-line citations, and the references listed do not clearly establish notability of the topic (especially as the titles of the papers do not directly match). In addition, the article is already written in a manner too technical for most readers, so it would likely be better off restarted from scratch. I submitted first via PROD, but it was declined by another editor without providing rationale 7804j (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. 7804j (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Strong delete. Much of this is invalid science, for instance, the statement "a current of thermionic energy" is, bluntly, nonsense. It is not "too technical", it is full of inaccurate statements. I suspect the only reason this page still exists is because it is classified as part of the (inactive) polymer project; if it had been classified as part of physics (which is where it belongs) it would have been AfD'd or CSD'd some time ago. N.B., most science undergrads will notice the invalid science here, it is not rocket-science (to use a horrible phrase).Ldm1954 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think there is any concept here (separate from Capillary action, to which it adds nothing). The nonsense science could be fixed but the nonsense topic cannot. M kuhner (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Strong Delete This article adds nothing more than what is already present in the article Capillary action. Thermionic emission refers to electrons emitted from a heated surface. It has nothing to do with ordinary capillary flow in meshes or textiles. If there is a new paper which I am missing then maybe sure but there is no citations to back such claims at all. Even then it will make more sense to merge it instead of having a new article. Also from what I know Polypyrrole does not “reduce liquid density.” Capillary action does not require changing density. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hideto Tomabechi

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

Delete

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP.

The article relies extensively on primary sources, self-published material, affiliated organizations, interviews, and promotional content. There appears to be insufficient significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to establish encyclopedic notability.

The article also contains extensive peacock wording, résumé-style career listings, synthesis, and extraordinary claims regarding psychology, military advisory roles, cognitive warfare, brainwashing, hypnosis, and related subjects that are either weakly sourced or not supported by high-quality independent references.

Multiple sections raise concerns under:

WP:BLP – controversial and extraordinary claims about a living person are weakly sourced or rely on affiliated/self-published material.

WP:NPOV – the article presents highly favorable and promotional descriptions as factual without sufficient balance or attribution.

WP:NOTPROMOTION – the article reads largely as a résumé, publicity profile, or promotional biography rather than an encyclopedic entry.

WP:PEACOCK – contains subjective or inflated language and unsupported prestige-oriented descriptions.

WP:OR – several analytical and scientific claims appear to synthesize interpretations or present the subject’s views as established fact.

WP:V – many claims are difficult to verify through reliable independent secondary sources.

WP:RS – substantial reliance on primary, affiliated, self-published, interview-based, or otherwise weak sourcing.

The current state of the article would require fundamental reconstruction rather than routine cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toma-ai-hanza (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Artificial intelligence, and Japan. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:28, 15 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Pinging @Theroadislong as the AfC reviewer and @Tomabechi Magyarország as the main creator of the article. Also note that WP:NPOV is generally not a good reason to delete an article, as it is a fixable issue. Same for promotional, unless it passes G11 (unambiguous and exclusively advertising and promotion).

𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Clearly easily passes WP:GNG all other issues can be addressed by editing. Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The claim that the "article also contains extensive peacock wording, résumé-style career listings, synthesis, and extraordinary claims regarding psychology, military advisory roles,..." is seriously exaggerated, and I don't see much evidence the other criticisms. Athel cb (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT at multiple levels. I confess to being very surprised by the votes of both Theroadislong and Athel cb. The version they voted on had masses of unsourced claims, and one of the worst examples of peacock I have ever seen, as the nom stated. For instance, being involved in a funded project is not notable, unless it is leading on one with funding of > $50M or so. Refbombing all over the place with self-published research very little of which has been peer reviewed. Writing a section on "Tomabechi algorithms" when the two of his so-called high impact papers have 67 and 6 cites is highly inappropriate. While it could be argued that he has enough mentions, plus WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT is not a common AfD arguement, I will invoke WP:IAR. So much of the material I have some expertise in (science) was dubious that I do question the accuracy of other claims. I have remove vast amounts of bloat, unsourced material etc. More is probably needed, plus a careful check to see if there is really a pass of WP:42 here; no way is there a pass of WP:NPROF.Ldm1954 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
N.B., prior to my removals G11 was probably appropriate. It may still be as the accuracy of claims needs checking. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment, the current version after I have removed fluff is comparable to the version accepted by @Theroadislong in 2020. I will comment that the 2020 version had multiple duplicate sources, refbombing, self-published sources (reports) and overstatements (e.g. there is no evidence that he has ever held any tenure-track position at a US university). That should have been caught at WP:NPP back then. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:FloblinTheGoblin
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20200721224000/https://www.sigef2019.com/portfolio-item/speaker-dr-hideto-tomabechi/	It appears to be an independent source, seeing as it is a global forum on innovation and ethics. I doubt anyone affiliated with him wrote it.		It has a couple decent paragraphs, probably (?) enough.	✔ Yes
https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/directory/bios/tomabechi-hideto.html	Not independent as a college's bio of an alumnus.			✘ No
https://doi.org/10.3115%2F981344.981385	A paper written by him.		Does not describe him at any sort of length as a paper from him about his field.	✘ No
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnlp1994/2/2/2_2_23/_article/-char/ja/	See previous on all counts.			✘ No
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hideto-Tomabechi	~ I do not know who writes these bios, he may have written it himself.		Only details his work experience and the papers he's written as a simple research profile.	✘ No
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2805206	See source #3 again on both counts.			✘ No
https://nrid.nii.ac.jp/nrid/1000070253226/	~ Again, I don't know who created this bio.		Goes into even less depth than the other bio.	✘ No
https://www.justsystems.com/jp/news/95l/news/j9507071.html	He was the head of JustSystems.		~ Doesn't appear to be, based on the amount that is written on the page, but I do not speak Japanese.	✘ No
https://crl.co.jp/	See previous on both counts, but replace JustSystems with CRL.		~	✘ No
https://c4i.gmu.edu/cyber-resilience-transparency-and-monotonicity-under-zero-trust/	~ Once again, no clue as to who wrote the bio. Could be him, or someone unconnected.		Brief one paragraph bio.	✘ No
https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000013.000006328.html	~ This is a press release company, so it is likely written by him or someone related, but I cannot be sure because of the language barrier.	~ If it was written by him, then probably, otherwise who knows.	~ Again, based on the amount visible on the page, probably not.	~ Maybe
https://resiliencejapan.jp/	He was chairman of the company.		~ See previous answer for significance.	✘ No
https://jfpc.site/	~ No specific section of the site is cited, also, again, I can't read it.		~	~ Maybe
https://sjsu.edu/faculty/y.shimazu/epilogueDrT.html	It is an interview with him.		Lots of detailed information.	✘ No
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-4446.12705	Article published by independent researcher.		~ I can't access the article, although it's worth noting he is not mentioned at all in the abstract.	~ Maybe
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-4446.12705	Another interview, which is unreliable. There is a short pre-interview bio but that is not significant on it's own.	~ I'm not sure if this is a reliable news site or not.	Again, lots of available info.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I'm not quite finished with the table, so bear with me, but I must say it's not looking good for passing WP:GNG. If anyone has any info to add or happens to speak Japanese, let me know if I got anything wrong. Once I finish the table I'll give my vote. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)(edit conflict)

Based on my table, as far as sources cited in the en-wiki version go, I would say non notable, however I'll have to checkout this jp-wiki article first.

Keep passes WP:GNG (look at sources on the Japanese article) and likely passes WP:NAUTHOR as well. Deletion is not cleanup. DCsansei (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources then please add them if they satisfy WP:42, and (for instance) are not his self-published reports, unrefereed papers etc. The prior english version did not have reliable source. In addition, there is no evidence of any books so the claim of a pass of WP:NAUTHOR (which relies upon reviewed books) does not follow policy. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Could you link these sources? Based on my table above I would say the en-wiki sources don't confer notability, and we'll need to see the sources you're talking about to add them to the article. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 22:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Notability is based on sources available, not what's in the article. There's also no indication that a WP:BEFORE search was conducted in Japanese. As to linking the sources, I noted that I am looking at the Japanese article 苫米地英人. You'll note an extensive bibliography there. All we need is one book to get a couple credible reviews to meet WP:NAUTHOR (which is why I said likely, I did not search each book individually for reviews - that would be the job of the nominator per BEFORE). DCsansei (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Ah, well, we'll still need to find a couple specific reliable sources to show notability. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

But yes, nom should've done it so now someone else'll have to. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
This is very, very odd. According to GoodReads he has 186 books(!). Of these 17 were published in 2015, 22 in 2014; I did not count further. A search for book reviews finds nothing. The article when the original nomination was made has no books listed, neither does the 2020 AfC version. Did he actually write all those books himself, for instance 22 in 2014 while he was (claims) leading research projects in Japan, consulting for the JDF, liasing with Carnegie-Mellon? Ldm1954 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to continue to withhold my !vote until someone goes it to the jpwiki article and finds some specific decent sources. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Definitely very odd all around. But that doesn't make him non-notable. The fact that an English search doesn't bring anything up isn't really relevant since I'm pointing out that there are many sources on Japanese Wikipedia which have not been evaluated. To conclude he is not notable, someone needs to evaluate those and do a Japanese-language BEFORE to see if any of his 168 books have multiple reviews (I am not volunteering for this). But given the fact that some of them were printed by major publishers, I think it's pretty likely which is why I said in my vote that he likely passes WP:NAUTHOR. DCsansei (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Additional source-verification concerns remain even after recent trimming of the article:

Several remaining claims still appear unsupported or overstated:
“Established the Altered Consciousness Research Center” – the cited sources do not appear to verify that such a university research center was established.

“VP R&D, Justsystem” – the cited sources do not appear to verify this specific executive title.

“Adjunct fellow and professor at CyLab” – the source appears to support an affiliated/fellow relationship, but not a professorship.

“Independent consultant to the Japan Self-Defense Forces” – the sourcing appears to rely on biographical self-description rather than independent verification.

“Research professor at National Chengchi University” – no reliable source appears to verify this title.

“Visiting professor at Waseda University Nano & Life Research Center” – appears to rely on affiliated or self-published news rather than an official Waseda University source.

The cited sources appear to support involvement in deprogramming activities related to Aum Shinrikyo members following the Tokyo subway sarin attack. However, the additional claims regarding “brainwashing”, “influenced states of consciousness”, being “one of Aum's greatest enemies”, and an assassination attempt do not appear to be clearly verified by the cited sources.

These examples reinforce that the issue is not merely tone, but verifiability and source quality for core biographical claims. Toma-ai-hanza (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
AfD is not for cleanup. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Theroadislong, when AfD reveals more unsourced claims the case for notability become weaker, and that for delete stronger, as stated by Toma-ai-hanza. For reference I just deleted those identified by Toma-ai-hanza above after checking them. I suspect there still remain significant issues. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
And there was more. For instance the page called him a "Research Scientist" when in fact he was doing his PhD at CMU. That type of excess is not acceptable. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Additional source-verification concerns remain after reviewing the currently cited sources.

The article currently provides limited evidence of recognition through independent peer-reviewed academic literature in cognitive science. I have also been unable to locate reliable sourcing verifying several core academic and biographical claims.
The currently cited sources do not appear to verify enrollment at the University of Massachusetts Amherst or receipt of a bachelor's degree from Sophia University.

The Carnegie Mellon CyLab fellow biography appears to be the primary source for claims regarding Yale-related affiliations, including the Fulbright research position and involvement with Yale AI/Cognitive Science programs.

Tokushima University sources appear to support an assistant professorship rather than a full professorship.

Existing JustSystems-related sources appear inconsistent regarding executive titles and responsibilities. The cited material appears to support a role as director of the JustSystem Basic Research Institute, but not necessarily several of the broader executive and research claims currently or previously stated in the article.

Claims regarding hypnosis, altered consciousness, homeostasis, cyberspace-related brain research, and human-machine interface development do not appear to be clearly supported by the cited JustSystems material.

The “brainwashing” section appears to rely heavily on a translated interview hosted on an individual academic webpage rather than strong independent secondary sourcing.

These issues further reinforce concerns regarding verifiability, source quality, and reliance on self-descriptive or affiliated material for major biographical and scientific claims Toma-ai-hanza (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
These are all good arguments to improve the article. DCsansei (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
They are good reasons to delete the article. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP DCsansei (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Search “苫米地英人” on the Japanese Web
- Yahoo Japan: Search · News
- Google Japan: Search · News · Books
Draftify with an Alfred plea. Almost definitely notable, but until someone checks the japan sources for notability, the argument is basically WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I would myself, to be clear, and I don't mean to force the job on someone else, but obviously there's the language gap. Thank you to whatever editor does end up digging through that pile, whenever they get around to it. I also don't see any indication of passing WP:NAUTHOR. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Context-based model of minimal counterintuitiveness

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

I propose merging to Cognitive science of religion because the content of this article is overly technical, and would be better used in expanding the article on the broader topic. The model described in this article was proposed in the context of the cognitive basis of religion, which is a link that is not made clear by this article. Additionally, I suspect this article was created by one of the researchers or someone closely connected to them. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Science, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

S.B.S. Government College, Hili

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, Schools, Science, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Isn't even listed in the single reference given. Fails all notions of WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, as no sources mention the college and has not gained significance in coverage. Babin Mew (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Hili (community development block)#Education, where it's mentioned, as an ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Except the ref supporting that singular mention didn't actually mention the topic, and so I've removed it. ~~I'm beginning to think this is a hoax.~~ - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Where is it mentioned in the Hili article? I don't see it. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails NSCHOOL. Oppose redirect as it doesn't appear to be mentioned in Hili (community development block)#Education. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Montserrat Fernandez Guarino

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Sources are overwhelmingly primary, non-independent, or trivial mentions. No significant independent coverage of the subject herself. Just another CV-like article Kqol • talk 23:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Biology, Medicine, and Spain. Kqol • talk 23:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete (for the moment). Her Google Scholar profile is respectable (h = 26) for someone who qualified in 2002, but she's not yet at the point of being notable. Maybe in a few years. In addition, nearly all of her publications have several authors, so one can't easily assess her own contribution. Athel cb (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I see no pass of WP:NPROF or any WP:SIGCOV. There is also considerable refbombing, a lot of peacock and some unsourced claims. This is the first new page creation of a relatively novice editor who has a slightly disturbing prior edit history with too many reverted. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete TOOSOON. Will be happy to reconsider in the future if better sources emerge. ScottyNolan (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Phase-shifting interferometry

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

Page which has been tagged for major problems since March. It may be possible to write a general article on this topic. However the current version has sources which do not verify the text they are attached to, unreliable sources, significant numbers of sentences which are close paraphrasing or copied from the sources, plus it does not cover the general topic adequately, only a small subsection. Page was previous PROD'd then the PROD contested as "Invalid rationale" which IMHO makes no sense. Given the unreliability of the page with no attempts being made to rectify issues it is time to TNT; someone can write an adequate page in the future. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Notability is definitely not a concern here as agreed by the nominator as per. I have worked on fixing the said article. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep I am the editor who contested the PROD. The nomination was invalid because PROD is to be used for uncontroversial deletions, while all concerns identified by nom in the rationale can be solved by editing. Such should not be managed deleting the article, per our deletion policy, therefore it was an invalid deletion rationale. The topic is notable and deserves an article, as the nom recognizes. The article has been also substantially rescued after the nomination. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers

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

Non-notable. With an institution established in 1953, even accrued notability would have had some SIGCOV, but the references and Google search are just passing mentions or primary sources. On top of that, the article makes unverifiable claims, some such as it being an Institute of National Eminence is totally false. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 02:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, India, and Delhi. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 02:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Professional societies such as this one and the American Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers are not covered in the popular press like soccer teams. This is a major engineering organization in India and is a sister society of the American IEEE. Government recognition of the credentials they provide is enough of an independent source. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
IETE was named an educational Institution of National Eminence in ~~2002~~. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC) -- Sorry, closer reading of the Jubilee page of 2003 gives the date as 1995. Just not mentioned in their website About page before 2002. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma could you ple share any other source than IETE itself which calls it Institution of National Eminence. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Academics and professional societies are areas where we believe what is on an organization's website (see ref requirements at WP:NPROF and references at IEEE), since they are not covered in popular media. However the pdf I link to above includes copies of the government documents received. I assume there were newspaper articles in India at the time, but I don't have access to that. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I just looked at WP:GNG and WP:NCORP to nominate this.
"Government recognition of the credentials they provide is enough of an independent source." Every organisation and society is registered and recognised by some government body, and for this article, I did not find any government source mentioning its notability. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
By credentials I meant licenses. Usually the argument to keep engineering societies is that they are the official licensing organizations for their fields. But I have discovered that India does not require professional engineers be licensed. University exams fulfill that role instead. A country's professional societies are notable because they have a large impact on their fields. We know this for IETE because the society is a member of the Engineering Council of India and a sister society of the IEEE rather than some rinky-dink local organization, providing two reliable and independent references. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Arthur Myers (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page didn't get moved as per my move request on the 15th of April 2026 on the basis that per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PARTIAL and WP:ONEOTHER, some users say disambiguation pages, including those referring to human names (first names and surnames), should list at least two non-primary topics that are commonly known by that name, in their main body, not just people that were only born with those names but weren't commonly known by them, or only have them as middle names.

I've added three 'Template:for-multi' hatnotes on the top of 'Arthur Myers (politician)''s article (the Australian-born New Zealand politician) including information about three other people that had the first name 'Arthur' but weren't commonly known by it, along with two people that had the middle name 'Arthur' and the surname 'Myers', and the two human name disambiguation pages for people with similar names, 'Arthur Meier (disambiguation)' and 'Arthur Meyer (disambiguation)', like I've added two of those hatnotes on the top of 'Jason Clarke''s article (the Australian actor) including information about two people with that name, one person that has the third name 'Jason' and the surname 'Clarke', and the three human name disambiguation pages for people with similar names, 'Jason Clark (disambiguation)' and 'Jay Clarke (disambiguation)' and 'Jay Clark (disambiguation)'.

I'll abstain from this discussion because I removed the WP:PROD tag that Bobby Cohn added, the day before it was meant to be deleted, on the basis that the article on A. Wallis Myers the British/English journalist and sportsman, whose first name was Arthur, even though he wasn't known by it, has had more pageviews over both the last 30 days (226) than Arthur Myers the New Zealand politician (181; 30-day comparison of both articles), the last year, two, five, and since the 1st of July 2015 (two months short of eleven years ago), and daily average (8 for the British/English journalist and sportsman vs 6 for the New Zealand politician), for reasons I don't understand, and that I personally think human name disambiguation page's see also sections are and should be allowed to list certain people that have those page's first names, as their middle names. PK2 (talk; contributions) 13:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Sportspeople, Lists of people, Journalism, Politics, Business, Science, Medicine, Physics, Sports, Cricket, Tennis, Disambiguations, United Kingdom, England, Australia, New Zealand, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. PK2 (talk; contributions) 13:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
(responding to ping) Sorry, you do or don't want this deleted? You removed the PROD but have also nominated it, but are abstaining from discussion? I'll note that I don't have an opinion on this (yet), there is more to the DAB than was present and my ONEOTHER nom would of course no longer make sense. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I originally didn't want it deleted, which's why I removed the WP:PROD tag in the first place and then requested for it to be moved on the 15th of April. That move request resulted in the disambiguation page not being moved, which is why I've nominated it for deletion. PK2 (talk; contributions) 05:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. 162 etc. (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: if someone's full name is "Xxx Yyy Myers", then we should have a redirect from the natural short form "Xxx Myers", even if they were not commonly so named. When we cannot make a redirect because that name is in use for one or more other articles, we need a hatnote or a dab page entry. There are too many "Arthur Myers"s for a hatnote. So we need this dab page. PamD 05:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
As a temporary measure I've added a link to the dab page to the politician's hatnote, because otherwise there was no route to the two "see also" Arthurs. PamD 05:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. There are four people on this list plus two see also links. It is perfectly normal to have people on dabpages whose first name and surname combination matches the disambiguated name even if they did not commonly use those names. We usually avoid putting multiple names at the top of the primary topic page (and I have reverted this). This is a perfectly valid dabpage following a format used in hundreds of others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PK2 (talk; contributions) 14:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Necrothesp and PamD. This is a perfectly reasonable and suitable disambiguation page to have with a primary topic and 3 other potential topics. "Arthur Myers" occupies that title largely on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. While we typically don't prefer for disambiguation pages to include Partial title matches, WP:NAMELIST/MOS:DABNAME isn't clear on what to do when a given name + surname combination still produces some ambiguity. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 May 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.


21 April 2026
News and notes: Six Serbian Wikipedia editors banned following controversy about political bias Plus, new bans for AI-generated content in place, a new drop in active admins, pranks on pranks, May admin election, and other news from the Wikimedia world. In the media: Could Wikipedia be involved in Massachusetts' proposed social media ban for minors? Another regulate-the-internet attempt casts a wide net. Gallery: March equinox The progression of seasons in March. Traffic report: Time to change my galaxy in case, we outta space! What catches the reader's eye? Death and film, per usual, and a loop around the moon per unusual. Comix: Of skirts and articles When significant coverage is only skin deep.
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives