Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 July 11

Battle of Toshamaidan Pass

Battle of Toshamaidan Pass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT, WP:V, and WP:NOR. The cited sources do not establish a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”. Gupta describes Mazhar Ali’s artillery column being blocked in a narrow defile, with about 500 men killed and wounded on both sides, followed by rumours, plundering, and harassment and he does not present this as a named independent battle, nor as the article’s infobox claim of 500 Sikh deaths and a clear Durrani victory. Lafont does not support the Durrani-victory framing either, since he says Ram Dayal’s division defeated the Afghans in more than one battle. Nayyar, Parmu, and Bhagata Singh’s History of the Sikh Misals do not appear to provide little coverage of the alleged battle, and some do not mention it at all.

This is a source-text mismatch, not just weak sourcing. WP:V requires the cited sources to directly support the material as presented, and WP:NOR bars creating a separate battle article by synthesizing scattered campaign details. The sources may support a brief note about an artillery-column skirmish or harassment during the Battle of Kashmir (1814), but they do not provide WP:SIGCOV of a distinct battle with independent notability therefore it should be Deleted. Heraklios 23:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Heraklios 23:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep(now supporting merge) I had reported the creator, however I have to disagree with the nomination because the battle has gained significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources such as "History of the Sikhs: The Sikh Lion of Lahore, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839" by Hari Ram Gupta, Kashmir: An Historical Introduction, Journal Perspectives on Guru Granth Sahib, Volume 9, Who's who in the History of Punjab, 1800-1849 and more have dedicated multiple pages to the battle. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  this is all in Battle of Kashmir (1814) that was part of expedition. RangersRus (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  I checked your references and again none of them are WP:GNG they do not even elaborate the battle or give any information about it. Heraklios 13:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Then you are falsifying the sources. They have dedicated multiple pages to the battle. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 07:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am not falsifying anything. My point is that mentioning Tosh Maidan Pass is not the same as providing coverage of a distinct battle. For example, Kashmir: An Historical Introduction mentions the pass, but it treats Tosh Maidan as a route rather than elaborating on the battle. If the sources only mention the pass or the Battle of Kashmir (1814), then they do not necessarily establish detailed coverage of this battle as a separate topic. Heraklios 11:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814)#Expedition or Delete. No sources call it a standalone battle. It was part of the expedition that has already been mentioned in the redirect page I suggested. Sources are very clear, The Maharaja advanced to Mandi, and then made his way to the Toshamaidan Pass on 18 July. On 29 July, Ruhullah Khan attacked him. On 30 July he assaulted the Sikhs with greater vigour. Heavy rains also caused them great annoyance.On 5 August, 1814, Ranjit Singh entered the village Sandha. Climbing up farther he found a stream in flood through which his guns and stores could not be passed. Hence, the flow of water channel had to be diverted. At the mouth of Toshamaidan Muhammad Azim Khan had firmly entrenched to oppose the Maharaja. Ranjit Singh reconnoited the position and considered the attack too hazardous. It is clear that the so called battle never happened at the location of the title but on the way in different places/villages, which is all part of expedition and already mentioned in the redirect page. This can't be a standalone article. The creator is also reported to be likely a sockpuppet. If proven, the page should be deleted as G5. RangersRus (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG per sources provided by ZDRX. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Battle of Toshamaidan Pass is a duplicate of an already existing page Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814)#Expedition. The creator also worded incorrect information. Creator wrote whole article by using Gupta source.
  • Creator writes, Mazhar Ali, who oversaw the Topkhana artillery division, was directed to move his guns through the Toshamaidan Pass.

But the source says Mazhar Ali, superintendent of Topkhana, was ordered to send his artillery to Toshamaidan Pass.

• • Creator writes, The ensuing clash proved costly, killing 500 Sikhs.

But the source says In the fight about 500 men were killed and wounded on both sides. All sources call it an expedition and no mention with any specific title Battle of Toshamaidan Pass. Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814) already exists and is much well written and no need to have two pages when they are literally on the same expedition. RangersRus (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge Relevant information with Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814)#Expedition after googling is appears that this battle was part of the larger Battle of Kashmir--maybre make this battle it's own section? Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A deeper source analysis would be useful - in particular, are the sources brought by THEZDRX all independent of one another, or are the later ones basically repackaged Hari Ram Gupta?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

the sources brought by THEZDRX are just snippets from Google book search on "Tosh Maidan" and "1814". They do not give any coverage on any such battle called "Battle of Toshamaidan Pass". Even the Gupta source only calls it a Kashmir expedition which already exists Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814). The creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Page can be deleted per G5. RangersRus (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Deeper source analysis. Below is a source-by-source review of the works cited for this article. I have linked the sources where I could find an accessible online copy; the unlinked works are ones I could not locate online. The issue is whether these sources provide independent significant coverage of a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”, rather than only discussing the wider 1814 Kashmir campaign.

  Hari Ram Gupta, History of the Sikhs: The Sikh Lion of Lahore, pp. 125–126. Gupta is the main source for the underlying incident. He says Mazhar Ali was ordered to send artillery to Toshamaidan Pass, where Ruhullah Khan blocked his passage in a narrow mountain defile. Gupta then says that about 500 men were killed and wounded on both sides, followed by rumours, plundering, harassment, shortage of supplies, rain, and the Sikh retreat. This provides some coverage of an incident during the wider Kashmir expedition, but it is not significant coverage of a separately named “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”. It also does not support the article's casualty framing, since Gupta does not say 500 Sikhs were killed; he says about 500 men were killed and wounded on both sides. Therefore, Gupta supports at most a brief subsection in the campaign article, not an independent battle article.

  Jean Marie Lafont, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, p. 31. Lafont gives only a short overview of the 1814 Kashmir campaign. He says one division under the Maharaja marched by Poonch, while Ram Dayal passed through Bahramgala and defeated the Afghans in more than one battle. Lafont does not mention a “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”, does not discuss the alleged battle as a separate event, and does not support the article's Durrani-victory framing. This is campaign-level coverage, not WP:SIGCOV for the article topic.

  G. S. Nayyar, The Panjab Past and Present, vol. 24, pp. 31–32. Nayyar discusses the 1814 Kashmir campaign, including Ram Dayal's advance to Behram Gala, fighting with Azim Khan, and fighting at Shopian. It does not mention Toshamaidan/Tosha Maidan or a separate battle there. This source therefore gives no coverage of the article topic itself. It may support the wider campaign article, but not a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”.

  R. K. Parmu, A History of Sikh Rule in Kashmir, 1819–1846, pp. 93–94. Parmu mentions the Rajouri-Thanna and Punch-Tosamaidan routes, Ranjit Singh's division of the army, the dangerous Punch route, opposition, shortage of provisions, and campaign difficulties. This is useful background for the route and the expedition, but it treats Tosamaidan as part of the campaign movement. It does not identify or discuss a separately named “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”. This is not significant coverage of the article topic; it is route/campaign context.

  Bhagata Singh, A History of the Sikh Misals, p. 130. This source discusses the 1814 Kashmir campaign, Behram Gala, fighting with Azim Khan, fighting at Shopian, and Ram Dayal's role. It does not mention Toshamaidan/Tosha Maidan or a battle there. This gives no coverage of the article topic and cannot establish notability for a standalone article.

  James P. Ferguson, Kashmir: An Historical Introduction, p. 101. Ferguson gives only a passing mention, stating that Ranjit Singh's army, retreating from Tosh Maidan, was defeated at Lohara during the failed attempt to invade Kashmir. This mentions Tosh Maidan only as part of the retreat route/context. It does not discuss a separate battle at Toshamaidan Pass and is not significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV.

  Journal Perspectives on Guru Granth Sahib, pp. 67–68. This is the closest source to mentioning fighting at Tosha-Maidan. It says Azam Khan opened a strong offensive against the main Sikh army at Tosha-Maidan, after which the Sikh army, suffering from lack of provisions, rain, sickness, and desertion, retreated in disorder. However, this is still brief campaign-level coverage. It does not provide detailed independent treatment of a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”, and the same material is already better placed within the wider 1814 Kashmir campaign.

  Conclusion. The cited works do not provide independent significant coverage of a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”. Gupta is the only source giving detailed incident-level material, but even Gupta frames it as part of the wider expedition and does not support the article's title, casualty claim, or result framing. Lafont, Nayyar, Parmu, Bhagata Singh, Ferguson, and the GNDU journal either do not mention Toshamaidan, mention it only as a route/pass, or discuss the broader 1814 Kashmir campaign. The material therefore belongs, at most, in Battle of Kashmir (1814)#Expedition. A standalone article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, and the current framing raises WP:V and WP:NOR concerns because the cited sources do not directly support the article's presentation. Heraklios 20:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Asilvering The source analysis sadly i could not access Who's who in the History of Punjab, 1800-1849. Heraklios 22:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep meets GNG. At least 3/4 sources provided above have significant coverage about the baytle. NavjotSR (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep (changed to Merge, see later comment). There are numerous sources that give sufficient coverage about the topic such as those listed by ZDRX. Noorullah (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per RangersRus. Also, I would like to note that the creator of the page has been blocked from creating pages indefinitely. As it was also noted by the admin who blocked them "there are a number of issues with the new articles you've been creating. It does not appear that these historical battles are appropriately sourced to pass our notability requirements, namely, WP:NEVENT". R3YBOl (🌲) 11:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Heraklios' follow-up comment. I don't understand how anyone could !vote keep after that - are you saying Heraklios is incorrect? If so, how? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Mainly because the sources who do not attribute any skirmishing/conflict in the retreat (or at Toshmaidan) are used to detail other parts of the campaign. Appropriate context given where it is due as shown in the article, those who aren't used for the battles context or not giving sufficient context are in the background elaborating on the campaign itself such as how the order of troops were divided and when the campaign began.

  -

  Gupta is the most elaborative here in respective context for there being a battle.

  -

  To nitpick from some of Heraklios comment regarding Gupta... "since Gupta does not say 500 Sikhs were killed; he says about 500 men were killed and wounded on both sides.", ...So 500 Sikhs were killed? I think you just meant here that the unknown for the Afghan side should also be 500, which I concur with.

  -

  However this brings the question on if Gupta alone is substantive enough to be almost standalone here or with the inclusion of the Guru Granth Sahib's source to warrant a standalone article? Probably not. So I support a Merge to the Battle of Kashmir (1814) instead, mainly Gupta and other accounts recording of such a possible battle and elaborating that (x) account says so and so occurred during the retreat. Noorullah (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Selective merge to Battle of Kashmir (1814)#Expedition per Heraklios, as an WP:ATD. A standalone page is clearly not warranted but total deletion is not supported by policy either. Katzrockso (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Katzrockso, what are you suggesting ought to be merged there that is not already present? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Upon rereading, I can see the overwhelming similarity. A redirect is probably better as I don't think there's really anything to merge. Katzrockso (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Battle of Kashmir (1814) per WP:ATD/R. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • ZDRX which sources have dedicated multiple pages to this battle? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Battle of Kashmir (1814)#Expedition. While this one has certainly more coverge than other battles, merging is still a fair option. Shankargb (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Shankargb, what are you suggesting ought to be merged there that is not already present? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For editors advising to merge this article into Battle of Kashmir (1814), what content specifically needs to be merged? There is, so far, a consensus against keeping a standalone article. Battle of Kashmir has consensus as a merge or redirect target. It's unclear from editors arguing to merge, why they propose merging over redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

there is nothing to merge. Incident as part of the expedition is already mentioned in Battle of Kashmir (1814). Redirect to Battle of Kashmir (1814) or delete is the appropriate option here. RangersRus (talk) 12:38, 16 July 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.

Big Giant Head

Big Giant Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable sitcom character. Article has been tagged as possibly failing GNG since 2018, and for primary sources since 2009 as it only cites show episodes. Possible redirect to List of 3rd Rock from the Sun characters as an ATD. MidnightMayhem (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. MidnightMayhem (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see the sources online to write an article about this character. The page has been tagged for citing the show itself since 2009. As of right now, all 5 citations are to episodes of the show (and linked back to Wikipedia). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of 3rd Rock from the Sun characters - The current article is pure plot information sourced only to episodes of the series. Searching turn up mentions of the character in discussions on 3rd Rock from the Sun, but no significant coverage that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG. That said, its a plausible search term and already has an entry on the series' character list, so Redirecting there is a valid WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per @Rorshacma. Khalitate (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of 3rd Rock from the Sun characters as an alternative to deletion. Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect The article is just a plot summary and doesn't meet the requirements for a separate page per WP:NFICTION. Merging it into List of 3rd Rock from the Sun characters is the best way to handle it. Staticspector (talk) 06:00, 18 July 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.

KZPK-HD3

KZPK-HD3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to KZPK because HD Radio subchannels, even if relayed on analog translators, generally don't have much if any independent notability from their parent station, and rarely anything to warrant a separate page in any event. (I'm not sure there's much to directly merge, but in the event there is anything here not yet there that can be brought over I proposed that instead of a flat redirect.) That a separate page exists at all is seemingly another remnant of the very low inclusion standards still in place in this topic area in 2018. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge. This is a very short article on an inherently related topic. By the nature of the two topics, any source covering KZPK-HD3, will likely also cover KZPK in some way. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge This should have been found and merged years ago. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom and an absolutely WP:MILL format, this isn't unique like Streetz 94.5 in any way. Nathannah • 📮 23:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nomination to KZPK. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Per nom. It would be better placed if Content was merged into KZPK per WP:OVERLAP. Staticspector (talk) 06:09, 18 July 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.

Devil Dog USA

Devil Dog USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG; not seeing any sources that meet the WP:SIRS criteria, especially not any non-local sources. Mainly sourced to routine coverage that is mostly just interviews with the founder. I can't access the national Fox News story but that also appears to be an interview. Also likely AI-generated (this is separate from the notability issue); see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Duran for context. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Suspected AI-generated articles, and New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete because the subject is inseparable from Gonzalo Duran, who was not notable either. The news stories available have two concerning tendencies: one tendency is to be interviews with Duran and the other tendency is to never come from outside of New York City. Something that pertains only to New York City could be notable, but something which attracts little or no interest from outside the City probably cannot be. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per @EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth. Khalitate (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The article creator has been blocked as a sock. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:39, 12 July 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.

Charleston–Mattoon micropolitan area

Charleston–Mattoon micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Coles County, Illinois because close to all of the information on here is already on the county page, and the things that are not there can easily be added if needed. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 20:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 20:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge as exactly coterminous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Previous versions of the Charleston-Mattoon micropolitan area included Cumberland County, Illinois . Katzrockso (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This can be added in the county's page. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 22:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

No reason that it should be. Katzrockso (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It can be added. It doesn't have to be. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 19:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Then the merge should be opposed as it would reduce readers access to reliably sourced encyclopedic information that is WP:DUE for inclusion when the articles are separate (the status quo). Katzrockso (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't even in the article in the first place, and plus, this doesn't make this topic notable when the page is already as short as it is. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 00:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge – per WP:OVERLAP FaviFake (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more comment on the opposing !vote's rationale, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This one appears to need more discussion before a consensus can be determined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per WP:OVERLAP. Khalitate (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Per WP:OVERLAP. This article is essentially a repeat of information already on the county page, so it should be consolidated into Coles County, Illinois Staticspector (talk) 15:41, 18 July 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.

Rodney Chapman

Rodney Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an AI-generated page, that was first draftified to Draft:Rodney Chapman but then copypaste moved back into article space 40 minutes later.

The user has since also created Rod Chapman, a third and also AI-generated page about the same person.

All of these pages are generated, the most obvious sign being WP:AIREDCAT in all of them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Suspected AI-generated articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Rod Chapman has since been speedy deleted as G15. This article was itself previously tagged for both G15 and A7, but both were (separately and unrelatedly) declined (no reason was given for the G15 decline, but the A7 decline was because a credible claim of significance exists; for what it's worth, the current nomination appears to be solely about the LLM issues and does not comment on notability or significance at all). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, I am not making any comments about the notability (or lack thereof) of the subject, only that the article itself is LLM generated and fails the NOLLM guideline. The Rod Chapman generation was clearly copied from a chatbot: AbuseLog/44628736. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as clear WP:NOLLM violation. Surprised that speedy delete was declined by User:Ca (with no explination) as this is very clearly an AI generate page but a repeat offender. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  The offered rationale Obviously LLM use and multiple WP:LLMSIGNS does not fall under either of the two narrow G15 subcriteria. The criterion explicitly notes: While these indicators can be used in conjunction, they should not serve as the sole basis for applying this criterion. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  The Rod Chapman generation did however, that's why it's a redlink now. This one cannot even be dratified because it is a copy paste move after being draftified the first time, making it a contested move of sorts. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. AI-generated, no proper sources, unsourced trivia, tonally a mess. Chapman was a rallycross driver and business owner, but I'm not finding the sources needed to show notability. Fences&Windows 09:56, 15 July 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.

Field slaves in the United States

Field slaves in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since most slaves in the U.S. were used as field hands, this article is just a fork of Slavery in the United States and Treatment of slaves in the United States. Given the poor quality of content and sources (three PBS documentaries in a field that is covered by a lot of academic research), merging is no option. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Question. So what are you suggesting should happen to the redirect Field slaveField slave and the articles linking there? Thincat (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Change the target to slavery. The current target is nonsensical because there were a lot of field slaves outside of the U.S. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Treatment of slaves in the United States. It’s more specific to the topic at hand than Slavery in the United States and so it’ll work better with the prose. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that this article needs improving with more citations ~2026-37064-10 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Slavery in the United States I have concerns on the grounds of WP:V and WP:GNG. This article on its own in terms of sources is pretty thin and would do better with more context and sourcing surrounding it. AadamentAardvark (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Slavery in the United States per WP:TNT. This article is just a poor treatment of a topic that is covered in depth in various other places. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus that the article should not be kept and likely be merged instead, but to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to slavery in the United States as that is the most clearly related term. Some editors discuss merging content. The content doesn't seem worth merging though. For example, the article mentions enslaved people being given "one outfit annually", but this isn't quite correct and it's lacking nuance. A plantation doing well might give the enslaved workers more than one outfit a year, especially in terms of having work clothing and church clothing. However, slave owners would also sometimes have people work nearly naked in rags, so some places created formal requirements to annually provide clothing. Also "outfit" does not give the nuance that the enslaved people were receiving mainly coarse osnaburg and negro cloth made into really simple clothing. Nor does it cover the practice of enslaved people themselves using the indigo grown on the plantations for blue dye, sumac berries for red/pink/orange dyes, and certain bark for brown dyes. It also doesn't mention sumptuary laws that forbade enslaved people from wearing nicer cloth, nor the tignon law that forced enslaved women to cover their hair. It also doesn't mention work put in by enslaved people to adorn their clothing with shells or feathers, or more generally connections to African traditions. I just don't see much to salvage. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to slavery in the United States per Rjjiii. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that redirecting to Slavery in the United States is the best solution. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 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.

Mister Terrific (Michael Holt)

Mister Terrific (Michael Holt) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Mister Terrific because Holt is the most popular and signficant Mister Terrific; the merge isn't just to put him there but to make him the primary focus with some of Terry. Terry Sloane's character wouldn't pass WP:GNG and the only reason it is seperate is just to make the page a WP:CONTENTFORK when it's not necessary. Like Cyborg Superman and Spectre, the page would benefit from it being simplified and consolidated and be less redundant. CosmicMordecai (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• • EDIT: Just changed the intended link.CosmicMordecai (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with Mister Terrific in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some of the AFD regulars' opinions on this, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Mister Terrific - The main article already covers both versions of the character, and has much of the same information and content already present. After removing the excessive amounts of in-universe plot summary on this one, none of the related articles are long enough that splitting it into three different articles would serve any real benefit. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Per nom. The content should be merged into Mister Terrific to eliminate redundancy and improve readability per WP:OVERLAP. Staticspector (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per all. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:24, 19 July 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.

Ferst Center for the Arts

Ferst Center for the Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Main campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology because it fails WP:NBUILDING. I can only find routine coverage of events taking place in the building. ElToAn123 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Architecture, and Georgia (U.S. state). ElToAn123 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT. FaviFake (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. The building does not meet WP:NBUILD.Katiedevi (talk) 20:23, 12 July 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.

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It was said in the deletion review a few days ago that "any established editor is welcome to file a new AfD should they wish". When I saw this title was only a disambiguation page, I initially began working to convert it to a full article. However, given the sensitive nature of the issue, I have now instead opened this AfD to ensure consensus on the matter of what is to be done with the title "Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations":

• A: Keep as a full article under the same title
• B: Convert to disambiguation page
• C: Redirect to Personal_relationships_of_Michael_Jackson#Sexual_abuse_allegations
• D: Redirect to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations
• E: Delete and salt the title "Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations" ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: as stated in the first afd, the page was meant to be a set index article, not disambiguation page. If anything, from my vague memories, it was left as it was after I was using the dabsort tool to clear up the links after the page move. I believe there was a small number of articles that were linked wrongly and was corrected during the sorting. Then again, it has been awhile and memories can be faulty. Do what you will with this information. – robertsky (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• C: Redirect to Personal_relationships_of_Michael_Jackson#Sexual_abuse_allegations. Of these options (which is a reasonably complete set), I would go with the redirect to the existing page section that covers everything sought to be disambiguated. This is appropriate to cover where it sits without splitting out. A disambiguation page is not needed because the section covers everything, and there is no need to delete the title altogether. BD2412 T 13:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note just noting as DRV closer that this course of action makes sense and I thank Howardcorn33 for opening the discussion. I have no opinion as to the best status of the content under this article title. I'm not fully up to speed on the CT around Michael Jackson that predate the ArbComm case and have not semi'ed this but if it's needed, someone can feel free. I won't be watching, so please ping me if anything is needed. Star Mississippi 14:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• A: Keep as a full article under the same title — maybe and merge in content from Personal relationships of Michael Jackson#Sexual abuse allegations. Altering my vote, I'm more confident of this on reflection. We need a centralized overview of the allegations, but the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson page is not the place for them. Popcornfud (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

At this point, the allegations against Jackson are so numerous and so complex (we have three separate articles covering different strands) I'm convinced Wikipedia needs a centralized overview of all of them — possibly an entire page, as described at WP:SPINOFF (see under "an overview article written largely in summary style", with example articles such as The Last of Us (franchise) and Physics).

The section mentioned in option C, Personal relationships of Michael Jackson#Sexual abuse allegations, presents an overview, but it's in the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson article, which isn't where such an overview belongs. If this were instead in the main Michael Jackson article, I would be happier about redirecting readers to a section rather than a dedicated overview page. (Perhaps that could be Option F?) Otherwise this content could be merged into the Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations overview article, where it would make more sense. Popcornfud (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The main Jackson article covers the allegations in separate sections, in order of when they were first publicized, so I'm not sure where "Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations" would redirect to for that article. A dedicated section on the article would probably require a major overhaul to avoid the needless repetition of content. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree! There’s still a lot of work to be done here, I think. That’s one of the reasons I’m hesitant to endorse a redirect, because I suspect the best solution here is really more complex and would require a lot of unpicking and restructuring of existing content across multiple articles, and I’m not sure this AfD is the best place to sort that out. Popcornfud (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Personal_relationships_of_Michael_Jackson#Sexual_abuse_allegations, option C: Although I believe there could be a substantial page on this topic, the page is currently a stub, and given the nature of the topic, I feel like it best serves as a redirect to that section, which is far more comprehensive. jolielover♥talk 04:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Personal relationships of Michael Jackson#Sexual abuse allegations as per @ BD2412 T. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. jolielover♥talk 04:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Personal relationships of Michael Jackson, or the Michael Jackson feature article. Eiter way, we have plenty existing information about the same issue. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:39, 11 July 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.

Mail bag

Mail bag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT Bryce M (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Transportation. Bryce M (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Satchel: Per nom Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Satchel. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Mail. I believe that it should not merge with Satchel, since mail bags are not exclusive to being satchels, as demonstrated by the images and general broad scope of the article. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Mail per talk. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge I support a merge with Mail. The article doesn't have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG standards for its own page. It would make way more sense to just drop this into a new 'Postal equipment' section over at the Mail article where it would be a better fit. Staticspector (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge for sure, but with Satchel or with Mail?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively to satchel as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far we have 3 !votes for merging with Mail and 2 for Satchel. I'd like to get more people's opinions on this to further develop a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge I also support a merge with Mail because this is too short as a stand-alone article and Satchel would be totally incorrect. Unless you carried your books loose, you carried your school books in a satchel. Perhaps those who suggest a merge to satchel did not think about a satchel's other uses. ww2censor (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Mail. There are other types of mail bags that are not satchels. Also, people who want to learn more about mail bags and their history are likely more interested in their relationship to mail and mail carriers. Ayji (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Mail. I could find the Postal Museum discussing mailbags and other museum items like , but not the kind of dedicated coverage needed for a standalone article. Mailbags are also canvas sacks, not just satchels. Fences&Windows 11:21, 15 July 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.

Mykhailuk

Mykhailuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a misspelling of Mykhailiuk and only lists people with that surname. The existence of this page is unnecessary. Aneirinn (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Ukraine. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure that's not the Ukranian spelling? SenshiSun (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The nomination just said a misspelling, but the key point is that there's already a separate list at Mykhailiuk, and this typo'd one duplicates it without adding anything of value.

The only reason we're not deleting the new one immediately is because the non-typo'd one only exists since June 28, and this one was created on May 20. At the same time, the same editor @Altenmann created both, so it looks like they just corrected their own mistake.

Anyway, can't we just redirect Mykhailuk to Mykhailiuk as {{R from typo}} and call it a day? --Joy (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect as suggested. SenshiSun (talk) 01:11, 13 July 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.

Amanda Toll

Amanda Toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am posting this on behalf of the subject, who had sought to get the page deleted in an IP edit on March 7, and whom I have since been in off-Wiki contact via a verifiable email address. (And lest it get asked, no, I am not being paid in any form for this representation.) She seeks a WP:BIODEL deletion due to significant personal discomfort with her continued presence under an old name from a prior marriage. While a politician, her service was minor -- four years as a minority party member in a 400-seat body in a small state (New Hampshire). Her presence there was mild, all we have to say about her was that she sat in a committee and that she co-sponsored one bill which has failed to pass. There is no scandal in the article that this is seeking to erase. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and New Hampshire. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, well-sourced article which meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. 162 etc. (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Member of the state house of representatives, meets POL. Enough sourcing can be found to add to the article, most links now are red or orange in Cite Highlighter. Politicians are inherently in the public eye, we're documenting this for future public knowledge and accountability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  This was the first of many that come up . Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: per @Oaktree b Xcccccccc123 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and rename. If the concern is what name is listed, it seems totally fine to update the name if there's a reputable source that can be cited for it. Politicians' names are updated all the time after marriages or divorces. Mary Bono was Mary Bono Mack until her divorce, and then the page name was changed. But we cannot delete a page simply because the subject of it doesn't want it. PA Uploader (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Per a 2026 RM, the COMMONNAME is "Amanda Toll". 162 etc. (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Meet criteria of WP:NPOL and much like the requested move earlier this year what their name happens to be after they exit politics/public life has no bearing here as WP:COMMONNAME still applies. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Passes NPOL. I do think it could/should be renamed. --Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: NPOL labels the following as notable. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." Article is for a sitting member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. With that said, article should be changed to Amanda Soto as that is now her name. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep but Support Renaming - very clearly passes WP:NPOL - member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Jishara (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment WP:AFD is not WP:RM. The RM discussion already happened, and the consensus is for "Amanda Toll". 162 etc. (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think it worth noting that we now have as many editors here supporting the renaming as there were opposed to it in the RM. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm fine with a rename, the person is notable regardless of what title the article has. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:ATD, "Naming disputes are discussed on the articles' talk pages or listed at requested moves." The article's title is not determined here at WP:AFD, and any discussion here concerning the title is out of scope. 162 etc. (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but support an IAR renaming. It's verified by her x.com account (mirrored at https://www.sotwe.com/ElectAmandaNH), which is certainly her account. Fences&Windows 13:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Meet WP:NPOL. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels", as she was a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:43, 18 July 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.

Belgian beer culture

Belgian beer culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Beer in Belgium because I do not think there should be two separate articles covering essentially the same topic. The subject of Belgian beer culture can be adequately covered within the broader Beer in Belgium article, especially if that article is expanded. There is already a significant overlap in content between the two articles, and merging them would reduce duplication while creating a more comprehensive article. Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Belgium. Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge into Beer in Belgium. While the angle is different, the WP:OVERLAP is too great. Cheers! gidonb (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge. WP:OVERLAP. Khalitate (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom. LincolnMagnus (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge is appropriate as there is high overlap but some unique content here. Fences&Windows 13:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Per WP:OVERLAP. The two article cover essentially the same information. So it makes much more sense to combine them into Beer in Belgium to avoid redundancy. Staticspector (talk) 15:58, 18 July 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.

Keith Hills Country Club

Keith Hills Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NGEO Bryce M (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Golf, Transportation, and North Carolina. Bryce M (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:

  Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. Neal, Damon; Fox, Dave (2007). North Carolina Community Treasures. Medford, Oregon: Morgan & Chase Publishing. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-933989-27-3. Retrieved 2026-07-12 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Keith Hills Country Club is a haven for golf enthusiasts ranging from beginners to professionals. The expansive country club has been owned and operated by Campbell University since 1974. Conveniently located between Raleigh and Fayetteville, its two championship courses are easily accessible to area golfers. Keith Hills I has been named one of the top ten public golf courses in the state by Carolina Magazine. Designed by golf course architect Ellis Maples, the large bent grass greens and rolling plush fairways provide fun and folly for golfers of all ages. Keith Hills II opened in 2002 and features a challenging 18-hole course designed by architect Dan Maples, son of Ellis Maples. Named one of the top 50-clubs in the southeast region by Golfweek, the complex boasts a 32-acre, state-of-the-art practice facility. The L-shaped site contains eight target greens, two practice bunkers, four putting greens and almost three acres of tee space. A driving range, pro shop, men’s and women’s locker rooms and swimming pool are also available to members. The snack bar offers sandwiches, drinks and light fare to enjoy before or after the game. Keith Hills plays host to two collegiate golf tournaments annually. The club also hosted the 1998 and 1999 North Carolina Senior Amateur tournaments, the 1999 TAAC Championship and the 2004 Atlantic Sun Championship. The Keith Hills Amateur is the club’s own prestigious tournament. Additionally, Keith Hills is home to Campbell University’s PGA/Professional Golf Management Program, a four-and-one-half year college curriculum for aspiring PGA professionals. Enjoy a round or two of golf at Keith Hills Country Club."

  2. Ward, Howard (2003-08-06). "Keith Hills II: Maples' Latest Creation Is a Sure-Fire Winner". The Pilot. NewsBank 127E15011577BA40.

     The article notes: "Maples latest creation is the Maples II Course at Keith Hills Country Club in Buies Creek. His father built the original Keith Hills course in 1974 and Dan Maples had a large part in that construction. Now he's proud as a peacock of his own contribution to the complex, which opened last fall and has drawn rave reviews. ... The new Buies Creek course is definitely a winner. It's a course with great visuals and it's a delight to play. If you're one of the flat-bellies who likes to play a course from its tips, you can get all you want here. If you're one of us round-bellies who needs a little ego lift now and then, move up to the white tees or beyond and have some fun. Keith Hills II is the kind of course that lets you stand on the tee and believe you can hit the fairway. Yet, it's as good a test for the low handicappers as they want to make it."

  3. Ward, Howard (2004-05-26). "Golf Bag: Foxfire Ready for Women's Am". The Pilot. NewsBank 127E1512B82B0358.

     The article notes: "Grand Opening: Keith Hills Country Club and Campbell University are holding a grand opening on Saturday to celebrate the new Dan Maples-designed Keith Hills II Course and the renovation of the original course at Buies Creek. The new course, with several holes along the Cape Fear River, has been open for play since November, but there has never been an official "opening." The old course, designed by Dan's father, Ellis Maples, has been renovated by Dan and both courses are sharing the spotlight. The highlight of the day is a scramble golf tournament that is open to the public for only a $35 entry fee. Players may form their own teams and more than $1,000 is being offered in prizes. ... The Keith Hills II course was voted second behind Rock Barn as the Best New Course in North Carolina last year."

  4. Southards, Eddie (2003-05-18). "Hockaday out after 10 years at Keith Hills". The Fayetteville Observer. NewsBank 0FB26791B614109D.

     The article notes: "A change in management at Keith Hills Country Club has resulted in a change in leadership in the pro shop. Jon Hockaday, the director of golf at the club since 1993, was not retained by Dan Maples Golf Management. Campbell University still owns the club but has hired the Maples firm, based in Pinehurst, to run the day-to-day operation. The Maples firm designed and built both 18-hole courses at Keith Hills. ... Martha Shooter, the head professional at Campbell for the past seven years, is running the operation for now."

  5. "Golf courses make changes in region". The Fayetteville Observer. 2002-08-10. NewsBank 0F576E3341679F5B.

     The article notes: "Another region course, Keith Hills Country Club in Buies Creek, made a major change by adding nine holes. Dubbed the “River Course,” it is adjacent to the original 18 holes. It will get another nine holes by the end of this year to make it a 36-hole layout. Both courses are owned by Campbell University. The new course is designed by Dan Maples whose father, Ellis, designed the original Keith Hills course that opened in 1974. This makes the first project where both Mapleses have courses at the same site. Players will get a chance to mix the new course with the old. For example, if they start on the back nine of the old course, they can finish on the new course. When the 18 holes are finished, the new course will have four holes in a wetland area, four links-type holes and three that are alongside the Cape Fear River."

  6. Ward, Howard (2001-11-21). "Golf Bag: Keith Hills Opens New Nine 2". The Pilot. NewsBank 127E27C540684F20.

     The article notes: "Dan Maples is putting his pride on the line with the construction of a new golf course at Keith Hills Country Club in Buies Creek. Nine holes of the new River Course will open for play Friday, and it is the first property to contain courses built by Maples and his father, Ellis Maples. ... The new nine will play to 3,341 yards from the championship tees and play to a par of 36. Golfers will be able to play the original nine, built in 1974, or a mixture of the two courses. Players starting on the back nine of the old course can finish on the River Course, getting a taste of both. Maples expects to have the second nine ready to play in the fall of 2002, and it will feature four holes that play alongside the Cape Fear River."

  7. Southards, Eddie (1999-11-14). "Changes at Keith Hills". The Fayetteville Observer. NewsBank 0F550006AA41C000.

     The article notes: "Big changes are in the works at Keith Hills Country Club in Buies Creek. The order the course is played has been switched, all 64 bunkers are being reconditioned and a new 18 holes is planned. The first and 10th tees were switched to move the first tee closer to the first tee of the proposed new course. Another benefit was discovered when the move was tried on an experimental basis for 60 days this summer. ... The bunker work was necessary because the drainage system has been in place since the course opened 25 years ago. ... Keith Hills was designed by Ellis Maples and his son, Dan Maples, is doing the bunker reconstruction. Dan Maples will also design the new 18-hole course, slated to begin sometime next year."

  8. Kelley, Pam (1998-03-01). "The University Ed Wiggins Built - Campbell Chief in Firm Control as School Flourishes". The Charlotte Observer. NewsBank 0F244DF9E9F2B98D.

     The article notes: "And back on the campus tour, Wiggins directs his driver, Provost Jerry Wallace, to pull into the neighborhood called Keith Hills Country Club. Then he describes how it came to be. It was 1967, right after he became president, that Wiggins surveyed this undeveloped area on horseback. In a move you could call visionary - or wacky - he decided it was the perfect place for a golf course. Turns out he was right. First, Campbell had an agent quietly buy parcels to assemble the acreage. Then the school made use of Buies Creek's best-known natural feature - its creek - and diverted a prong to create the course's water hazards. With an attractive golf course - built by premier course designer Ellis Maples - as an amenity, lots in the neighborhood sold well. Today, home values range from $138,000 to $500,000. N.C. Secretary of State Elaine Marshall lives here."

  9. Less significant coverage:
     1. Hodge, Alan (2000). "Our State" North Carolina Quizzes. Wendell, North Carolina: Broadfoot's of Wendell. p. 76. ISBN 1-56837-388-0. Retrieved 2026-07-12 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "In operation for more than 20 years, Keith Hills Country Club in Buies Creek is a par-72, Dan Maples designed course that has what some have called the largest practice facility in North Carolina. Keith Hills is located adjacent to what college whose mascot is a camel?"

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Keith Hills Country Club to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 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.

Devgan Marandi

Devgan Marandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sport of athletics, and India. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not have significant coverage. Aneirinn (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Indeed it fails WP:NATHLETE, Also, it's rare for indian to achieve it, with the kind of govt support. However, I think it's somewhere passing WP:GNG. The listed sources itself is detailed enough about him, on top of it, on searching his name, 10-15 sources are overall available. 1друг (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. There are only two articles cited that are even RS -- ToI is medium-rel, thus inappropriate for a BLP, and "The Logical Indian" is clearly GUNREL -- and both are routine bout reports. JoelleJay (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete No indication that any WP notability criteria are met. Predominantly local coverage of an amateur MMA fight checks zero notability boxes. The claim that the fight result was "bringing global MMA glory to Jharkhand" is pure fiction and puffery. Papaursa (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Currrently a BLP1E example, as all the fawning coverage is about one fight. Fences&Windows 13:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The subjects fails WP:NATHLETE and does not have the WP:SIGCOV required by WP:GNG. Staticspector (talk) 16:09, 18 July 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.

Sam's Choice

Sam's Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to List of Walmart brands because it fails WP:NPRODUCT Bryce M (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, United States of America, and Arkansas. Bryce M (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Walmart brands where it is listed with most of the prose from this article. Not enough content or coverage for a separate article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I think there is a lot coverage regarding the safety of these products. It would any reader to have whole history of this brand with controversies on a standalone article. Some media coverage going back to 1992: , , , , , , , , . EWG found cancer causing chemicals in its products. ConsumerReports found heavy metals . This case study found water contaminants above legal limits. ~2026-39119-02 (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources produced....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect. Coverage of safety is incidental to the brand. Use those sources to add to Walmart#Product safety. Fences&Windows 13:20, 15 July 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.

Zhenjiang Vinegar Industry Park

Zhenjiang Vinegar Industry Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was previously PROD'd for deletion for violating WP:NEWLLM and a discussion may still be warranted. Amigao (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep, the article has been refilled with more citation and revised. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@TinaLees-Jones Can you comment on the AI issue? Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Travel and tourism, Economics, Suspected AI-generated articles, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• There are multiple problems here. The article text does read as LLM and the author's edits have not addressed that. Possibly it is machine-translated with LLM involvement; if so, the original has not been credited and needs to be. I can't evaluate the sourcing as it is all in Chinese, but every source will have to be checked for the subtle source/text mismatches and close paraphrasing typical of recent LLM. Beyond that, the article is promotional throughout, reading like an advertisement. I will !vote Delete based on the first issue but the second is also serious. M kuhner (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The AI prose is cringeworthy, but also the Chinese name given in the article (镇江醋业产业园) gets 0 Google hits other than the article. I doubts its veracity. The sources are either broken, not independent, not about this project about Zhenjiang vinegar in general, or not giving SIGCOV. Fences&Windows 14:23, 15 July 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.

International School of Hamburg

International School of Hamburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG being sourced only to a single trade directory. BEFORE turns up only the school's own website. The school's own editors have often intervened (WP:UPE) without improving the article. The sources support the school's existence, but very little of the rest of the material. I'd CSD if it weren't for the article's 20 year existence. Cabayi (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Germany. Cabayi (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Small school, no GNG. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Well written (aside from being almost entirely unsourced), however, it fails to pass WP:GNG. YeetV4 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 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.

Opus Dei and politics

Opus Dei and politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Opus Dei because the topic of this sub-article might be better off covered as part of the parent article. The controversy section would fit neatly with the controversy section of the parent article, while the previous sections likely would better serve as part of Opus Dei#History, which is currently particularly lacking in the coverage of the political history of the prelature. It reads very much like a fork that has not been actively maintained, with many long-standing sourcing issues and lacking much due content, which would be more straight-forward to fix by merging the relevant, sourced content in this page to the parent article. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. Factors I'm thinking about:

1. WP:SIZERULE: Parent article is ~6100 words, and it'll expand somewhat when Opus Dei in society is merged in, but it's not yet near the ~9,000 word threshold for "Probably should be divided or trimmed".
2. WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:MERGECON: Opus Dei is a challenging topic to present in a balanced way, and handling controversial topics in sub-topic articles isn't helping. It leans toward WP:POVFORK, effectively allowing the main article to be sanitized. I think merging the relevant and sourced material would strengthen the main article.
3. Content issues: This article has a lot of poorly-sourced and essay-like material, with several unnecessarily long quotes that also appear in and seem to be sourced from a 2001 Opus Dei publication about Opus Dei and Franco (Preston, Crozier, Berglar). The current material would be a lot shorter if properly written. This article also isn't fulfilling its stated scope as-is - it's missing material about Opus Dei and contemporary politics, including in in Spain and the United States (Catholic Information Center, Santorum, Mulvaney, Leonard Leo, Heritage Foundation, etc.).

Dreamyshade (talk) 22:40, 11 July 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.

Denis Kopotun

Denis Kopotun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Though the two sources from Forbes and Vancouver Sun provide a good start, however, the bulk of the remaining references provided are all primary sources and some are even self-published. The abundance of information on The Pals provides a challenge since it is made up of information from sources such as Distractify, as well as information which seems to have no bearing on the main topic. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 11:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 11:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. Bridget (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - two Forbes and one Vancouver Sun, all major, editorially-controlled, reliable independent sources with significant coverage? that's quite clearly enough to pass GNG. Jishara (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete and Salt – I agree in which, the Denis Kopotun article, consists of a low amount of citations, which could prove notability and reliability, however, the article should also be salted, as I noticed in which, there were previous AfD nominations for Denis Daily, and so therefore, drafting the page would be objectiveless, as this would only just cause the page, to gain continous attempts of moving into mainspace, and therefore, larger amounts of AfD nominations as a result. MrDevolver (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep – I heavily disagree, since almost all information now has a reference, Denis Kopotun is a notable individual and deserves a wikipedia page as he's a director for a Canadian cartoon, Denis and Me, is featured on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, and more. Cheromaniii (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually Cheromaniii, I disagree with you, evidence to claim so is in which, you confirmed: "Since almost all information now has a reference". This is 1 perspective, which proves for why, other users would also disagree with you, because, here in strict online encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, this is not only to do, with the amount of citations available, this is also to do, for if the citations even meet, WP:GNG alongside with also, being reliable for inclusion. My 2nd perspective, for why other users, would also disagree with you, is because, you confirmed: "As he's a director for a Canadian cartoon, Denis and Me, and is featured on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, and more". This proves my 2nd perspective, for why other users, would also disagree with you, because, the fact in which, you primarily included Denis and Me and Forbes 30 Under 30 in this, proves how you are focusing, on Denis Daily's popularity, which proves for why, other users would also disagree with you, because, here in Wikipedia, popularity by self, does not deem notability. MrDevolver (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think your reply actually involves GNG the way you claim it to. You're right that notability isn't just about citations. It's actually about whether sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. But your reply says that standard and then never applies it to the sources actually in question.

Forbes 30 Under 30 isn't an unreliable source, it's independent, and an editor hand-picks people to show recognition from a major publication, which is kind of third-party sources GNG looks for.

Calling it "popularity by self" makes him appear differently from what the sources are. Denis Kopotun didn't write his own Forbes profile, Forbes selected him! The same applies to Vancouver Sun, which is a reliable, independent newspaper, and yet, this source isn't addressed in your reply, despite being flagged by the deletion nominator as one of the two strongest sources in the article.

Saying "this proves why other users would also disagree with you" several times isn't a valid demonstration of showing how the sources against policy. If the claim is that these sources fail GNG, the way to demonstrate that is to show they're not independent, not reliable, or that the coverage is extremely minimal.

Being a director of a produced, distributed work and receiving independent recognition for it is closer to the kind of coverage GNG is about.

If there are specific sources here that are weak, self-published, or non-independent, it'd help the discussion to name them directly rather than just defining Denis's notability and popularity claims in general terms.

Right now the strongest two sources (Forbes and Vancouver Sun) haven't actually been shown to fail inclusion criteria or GNG. Cheromaniii (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't attempting to confirm in which, Forbes 30 Under 30 isn't an unreliable source, I just assumed in which, since you confirmed about Denis Daily, being included in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, that this was referring specifically, towards Denis Daily's popularity, which only popularity by self, cannot just deem notability. Secondly, when I confirmed: "Popularity by self", I wasn't directly referring towards, the Denis Kopotun article itself, I was referring towards, your mention in your AfD debate about, Denis Daily being featured in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, because, you specifically mentioned Denis and Me and Forbes 30 Under 30, within your AfD debate, which caused me to assume in which, you were referring towards, Denis Daily's popularity, within your AfD debate. Thirdly, I didn't include Vancouver Sun, within my reply, for why I disagree with you, because, once again, I was attempting to refer specifically, towards your AfD debate, not directly towards the, Denis Kopotun article itself. Fourthly, I am as of currently aware, in which, being the director of a series, does indeed meet WP:GNG, and as a result, I apologise for such. Fifth/Finally, I shall continue to disagree with you, and I also agree with AdobongPogi, because, AdobongPogi specifically confirmed in which, although Forbes and Vancouver Sun, could be reliable/notable enough, majority of the other citations, are either primary and/or self–published, which I may/may not agree with, and Wikipedia also clearly confirms in which, based on the length of the page, there should be a minimum of atleast 3 citations, which are purely notable/reliable, and are also non–primary, in order for the page to weakly remain, in the mainspace, and according towards the Denis Kopotun article, since AdobongPogi confirmed in which, Forbes and Vancouver Sun could be reliable/notable enough, this therefore causes the amount of citations, which could be purely reliable/notable and non–primary, to be 2/3 citations, defining in which, there continues to be 1 remaining citation, which could be purely reliable/notable and non–primary, to be added into the Denis Kopotun article, in order for the page, to weakly remain, within the mainspace. MrDevolver (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but most of your points consist of almost no logic.

First, there is no rule on Wikipedia that "based on the length of the page, there should be a minimum of atleast 3 citations" to remain in the mainspace. Notability is completely independent of article length, and it is not a numbers game where an article fails if it has two high quality sources instead of three.

According to WP:GNG, what matters is whether a subject (Denis Kopotun) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the Forbes profile and the Vancouver Sun article both provide significant, independent coverage, they establish the baseline for GNG on their own (which they do).

Second, counting the total number of references/sources this way deceits how an AfD works. Even if the majority of the other citations currently in the article are primary (which they're not), the standard procedure is to clean up or remove weak sources, not to delete the entire page (per WP:PRESERVE). An article is kept based on the best sources available that prove the subject's underlying notability, not by averaging out the quality of every single link in the reference section.

Since we both agree that being the director and creator of a distributed and televised animated series (Denis and Me) is a major encyclopedic milestone, and we have independent coverage from major outlets like Forbes and the Vancouver Sun documenting him personally, Kopotun clearly passes GNG.

Just because there are weaker citations is not a valid enough reason to delete the article. I still stand by keeping the article.

Cheromaniii (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have an issue finding significant coverage in reliable abd independent sources. The Forbes source backs up the resume part of the article. A HEY would be to provide more sourcing that advances notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: passes WP:GNG. Two articles in Forbes spaced 2 years apart on different topics related to Denis and an article from the Vancouver Sun in between both of those articles is more than enough for me --TitCrisse (t•c) 12:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC).

  I agree that the the two sources' articles help establish notability, but my concern is not only whether the subject passes WP:GNG. Though these two sources do offer some substantial independent coverage, the bulk of the content of the article is still sourced either from primary sources, including his own YouTube videos and official websites, or from sources which deal only with certain parts of his projects. WP:NOTINHERITED These two sources however, do not necessarily back up the scope of the current article, especially the detailed information provided regarding his early life, YouTube career, businesses, and his show 'Denis and Me'. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 09:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why not just remove any excessive information rather than deleting the article? Cheromaniii (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Removing excessive information does not resolve the underlying notability issue. Much of the article's substance is drawn from a small number of sources and from coverage of Denis and Me rather than Denis Kopotun himself, and some of the information is unsourced. If you remove the unnecessary, overly detailed, or routine information from the article, there is not much independently source information left about Denis himself to show that he meets WP:GNG. In that case, I agree with @Fences and windows that a merge instead to Denis and Me may be more appropriate than maintaining a standalone biography. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 10:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete or selective merge to Denis and Me. Vancouver Sun and Forbes are fine, but we want more outlets for WP:GNG to be satisfied. Repeat coverage by Forbes doesn't count twice for notability. I found nothing else reliable with SIGCOV. Fences&Windows 16:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. This is lacking good sources, and, as I've written before, "Forbes is a crust of a shell of a carcass of a formerly reliable source." Bearian (talk) 04:34, 18 July 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.

Keyesport Landing, Illinois

Keyesport Landing, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A particularly egregious mess made in the 2012 reformatting, when they also labelled a spot marked as "campground" on earlier maps (which it actually still is) as a separate part of Keyesport (which unless incorporation made it so, it isn't). This "landing" is nowhere near water and the aerials make it clear that it is an instant manor development that didn't really take: there are a number of cul-de-sacs where no house was ever built. But it clearly isn't a settlement that meets WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Geography. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Run-of-the-mill subdivision, no evidence of significant coverage or offical recognition to meet WP:NPLACE. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a populated place in the sense required by WP:GEOLAND. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 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.

Parish assembly (Jersey)

Parish assembly (Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

Moved from Special:Diff/1362840733

 – FaviFake (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Parishes of Jersey

There is significant overlap of general information about parishes between the two articles, and insufficient material on Assemblies to support a stand-alone article. Andrew Le Sueur 14:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Jersey and Politics. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Excessive duplication makes this a WP:BOLDMERGE candidate, objection seems unlikely since the info is all already at the main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:OVERLAP and this article being an undersourced backwater. Fences&Windows 17:22, 15 July 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.

Naming of Toodyay, Western Australia

Naming of Toodyay, Western Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Toodyay, Western Australia because this page violates WP:OVERLAP, WP:MERGESHORT, and WP:MERGECON. This topic would be better covered at the main article for Toodyay. Steelkamp (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Support! SenshiSun (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge – Not sure WP:SHORTTEXT applies here, but the other reasons do. FaviFake (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the purpose is the naming has significant connections to multiple places not just the merge target, it would mean duplicating the story in those articles as well. The whole purpose of separate articles is to gather the connecting information in one place and stop duplication of content across multiple articles. Newcastle & Toodyay existed as separate places for 90 years until 1910, then it became Toodyay & West Toodyay. Gnangarra 04:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 09:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• split and merge I see no virtue in lumping all of this together and it already partially duplicates material in the two articles. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. The article is an improper WP:SYNTH of the etymology of the name and the history of the settlements. This isn't a separate notable topic and is mostly already covered in the main article. What little extra there is can easily fit. Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 July 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.

Western Iran clashes (2026–present)

Western Iran clashes (2026–present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Proposing this article be merged into 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis. Article was made by a user with lots of writing experience in this field, but this appears to be a WP:CFORK with no real reason for being WP:SPLIT from the main article. Both events take place in the same region, between the same parties, at the same time. The main article, being removed of all recent information to make this page, now has no updates since March and is out of date. For such an in-the-news topic, I propose they be merged as soon as possible. Johnson524 03:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iran. Johnson524 03:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

This merge should be the other way around, 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis could easily be made into a background for Western Iran clashes (2026–present) Militant.Insurgency (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose – Western Iran clashes (2026–present) focuses specifically on the armed clashes inside Iran, while 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis is a broader overview of all noteable Kurdish/Iranian political, diplomatic, and military activities as a result of the 2025-2026 Iranian protests and 2026 Iran war. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the clashes article can develop into a more detailed, day-by-day account, while the crisis article remains an overview. I also don't think the fact that the events involve the same parties, region and time period is sufficient reason to merge, as Wikipedia has many examples where a broader conflict has separate articles for individual military operations occurring within it. PawWiki2 (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, a recent source already treats the 2026 clashes as a distinct phase, comparing them to the opening of the 2016 campaign. I think that further supports keeping a separate article. PawWiki2 (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Where is there an overlap? PawWiki2 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose – Per PawWiki2. Precedent: the prior phase of this same conflict, Western Iran clashes (2016–2023), has stood alone for years without being merged into a broader crisis article.

Oppose – This article covers the military clashes specifically, while the crisis article covers the broader political and diplomatic context. Shahab760 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - The scopes are reasonably well defined by the titles and are complementary: clashes within Iran vs the broader political-military crisis that also has a Kurds-in-Iraq component, and the third complementary article 2026 Iranian strikes on the Kurdistan Region. Boud (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with others here that the two articles have sufficiently distinct scopes to justify separate articles. Tasasiki (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• comment A merge is likely inevitable and both articles suffer from severe recentism/blow-by-blow unencyclopedic writing: it's never a good sign when the references section is larger than the text. It obviously is all one conflict and writing about it this way is counterproductive. Mangoe (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - distinct scopes, both notable. Jishara (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - WP:SUMMARYSTYLE heavily supports 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis as the broader overview while Western Iran clashes (2026–present) serves as the sub-topic on localized military engagement. The point about WP:RECENTISM is valid, however, the solution is ruthless editing and tightening. MissBVCC (talk) 14:53, 13 July 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.

Leland Corporation

Leland Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging it and Cinematronics with Midway Studios San Diego, because he thought it was the same company, sans legal corporations. DucNguyen0131 (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge: Newspaper and magazine articles and retrospective interviews along with that clarified that Cinematronics, Leland/Williams Entertainment and Midway San Diego was the same entity. Even a Nintendo Power article called Leland as Williams Entertainment. --RSX-798 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

As shown below, the trades made it very clear Cinematronics and Leland were not the same thing. Cinematroincs went away and the Cooks bought its assets. I am pretty sure Leland and Midway Studios San Diego are also not the same legal entity, but that is more corporate minutiae. I think it is fair to say Midway Studios San Diego was formed solely to be a successor to Leland, and in this case Tradewest was actually acquired lock, stock, and barrel by Williams and the new corporate overlords were shuffling around pieces of a corporation they now owned rather than the Cinematroincs situation of acquiring outside assets from a defunct company. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Leland and Midway Studios San Diego can be considered the same thing. That’s why I won’t object to that merge, but Cinematronics needs to stay separate. Indrian (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep Cinematronics This is a complete distortion of the history that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. This outcome would eliminate articles on entities distinct from Midway Studios San Diego and erroneously conflate them.

Cinematronics was an independent company founded in 1975 and dissolved in 1987. It did not survive to become Midway Studios San Diego or any other entity.

Leland Corporation was established as a subsidiary of Tradewest after they bought the assets of Cinematronics, not the corporation itself. I don't think it technically became Midway Studios San Diego, but eh, it's close enough since it was inter-company reorganization. Cinematronics though, no. Indrian (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep Cinematronics The claims on the talk page are inaccurate and do not reflect the article. Leland is the successor to Cinematronics, it's not the same company even though it took on those assets. The page also does not "conflate" Cinematronics games and Leland games - it's very clear in its distinction between the two.

I concede that Midway Studios San Diego probably does not require its own page and could be an extension of Leland, even if they are again distinct entities. However, merging Cinematronics and Leland is not at all correct. The History of How We Play (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

So I largely believe on April 1987, Tradewest is purchasing Cinematronics, and then soon afterwards Cinematronics was turned into The Leland Corporation. Fast forward, six years later WMS bought out Tradewest, while keeping the San Diego development facility as Leland Interactive Media turned into Williams Entertainment. Even Nintendo Power is calling Leland as Williams Entertainment by then, as it opened a new office in San Diego. Soon afterwards, Williams Entertainment became Midway Home Entertainment so was the San Diego developers. This is a big poetry story. --DucNguyen0131 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They did not purchase Cinematronics, they purchased assets out of bankruptcy, which is exactly what both the articles you cited say. They became the rights holders for everything, they did not continue the corporation. Cinematronics is independently notable due to the many classic games it released. Having that redirect to a San Diego Midway Studio would be both inaccurate and egregious. Indrian (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep Cinematronics. As stated above, they are not the same company and definetly independently notable. Whipmywillows (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Disagreed. They were the same company. --DucNguyen0131 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The companies being different is a fact, not an opinion. It was an asset purchase, as the reliable sources reporting on the transaction document. If they were the same company, Tradewest would have also inherited the liabilities that drove Cinematronics into bankruptcy. They did not. Indrian (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge: I disagree with the options. I agree this was the same company. --DucNguyen0131 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That source on the Cinematronics purchase literally says it was not: "In one of the most surprising acquisitions in the history of the coin-op industry, Tradewest announced its purchase of the assets of Cinematronics." That's unambiguous: they purchased the assets not the company. Even if they organize those assets into a largely similar form, it is still a different company. That's like saying Atari Games Corporation is the same company as Atari, Inc. or that Stern Electronics is the same company as Chicago Coin, two other examples of asset purchases. It's just not true. Cinematronics died, Tradewest picked up the pieces. Whether the same people or factory or even the same name persisted in some form is irrelevant. The company died. The reliable sources document this. Stop trying to rewrite history with your own facts! Indrian (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Cinematronics, merge Leland into Midway Studios San Diego - the April 1987 Play Meter says Tradewest bought "the assets of Cinematronics" so they're different entities. Cinematronics is independently notable as a company for its 1975–1987 games. Leland and Midway San Diego were the same operation renamed through corporate reshuffling, so one article makes sense there SLIDD yap 17:50, 14 July 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.

Sadagaat Organization

Sadagaat Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Besides for this, I am not finding any WP:SIGCOV and it appears to fail WP:NORG. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sudan. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2026-06 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep: I found another source in English, and did you look in Arabic for more sources? Since this organisation is based in Sudan, my guess you will find some (like 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), although becuase the organisation name is the plural of the word Sadaqah (alms) I also found thousands unrelated sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that this falls under NORG or NCORP not GNG. Some source analysis would be helpful and discussion of which policy applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 11 July 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.

Deflated Sharpe ratio

Deflated Sharpe ratio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article was started by user @Dsr02014, a thinly veiled sockpuppet account for Marcos Lopez de Prado, creator of the Deflated Sharpe ratio. The article serves only as promotional material for this obscure heuristic which has no real use in the industry. Topic is not noteworthy and violates standards for original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabbychef (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @ShabbyChef: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO or make use of a tool like Twinkle. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 00:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics, Mathematics, and Artificial intelligence. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Lister also listed Meta-Labeling and Purged cross-validation. The article Hierarchical Risk Parity also matches the pattern but was created by a different account. I wonder if a single listing for all these articles would benefit the discussion.— xo Ergur (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 11 July 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.

Graham Platner

Graham Platner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:SUSTAINED, Platner received alot of coverage when he first entered ran for senate but he has now dropped out. He has never held public office so fails WP:NPOL All coverage on his is in relation to the Maine Senate race, see WP:ONEEVENT Olliefant (she/her) 06:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Maine. Olliefant (she/her) 06:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. He now meets WP:BIO due to the coverage of the allegations against him and the fact that his dropping out is unprecedented in Maine politics. While not all failed candidates are notable(I think a better case could be made that Angus King III is not notable), Platner is. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. If he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now after months of coverage. andrew.robbins (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – Not sure I understand the citations of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:ONEEVENT. Platner has sustained coverage up to this point, and it would be ludicrous to assess and claim that all sustained coverage has been lost less than 24 hours after he officially dropped out of the race. Further, Platner the person is not an event and Platner's campaign was not a single event. Seems reductive to claim that coverage of Platner is limited to his now failed campaign. Yue🌙 (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  All the coverage is tied to Platner's campaign in the 2026 United States Senate election in Maine, which is a single election Olliefant (she/her) 08:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as this requires a very convoluted reading of WP:ONEEVENT. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly has months of coverage from lots and lots of different sources. Definitely meets the notability requirement.

He isn’t exactly running and losing for town council. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely agree. He is definitely notable enough and meets the requirements in other sections (as other users point out). Historyobsessor (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Clearly notable, with consistent coverage from a large range of sources from both US and international media. Viatori (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I have never heard of the person when it comes to the vast majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia, but I've heard of this person and I won't forget them. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete a political candidate with a colorful past, that's about all this is. Doesn't meet POL, the career otherwise is nothing notable. I don't see notability. This person either loses the election or doesn't run, what we have left is a failed political candidate, farmer and military person. We aren't here to document human interest stories. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I honestly had to think about this one for a bit. A candidate who has never held elected office, ultimately did not go on to become an elected official, and whose claim to notability - the story of his Senate campaign and its rise and fall - is difficult to separate from him being credibly accused of very serious crimes. This made me worry that WP:BLPCRIME applies here. But BLPCRIME would only apply if he were not a public figure, and you could reasonably argue that by campaigning to become a public official and becoming a major party's nominee for a Senate race, he became a public figure voluntarily. If media coverage of his primary campaign made him notable enough before the allegations due to the amount of coverage of both the campaign's controversies and its successes, then this would mean that WP:BLP1E does not apply because the successful primary campaign against Mills really is a separate event from the allegations that ended his general election campaign against Collins.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Many months of coverage on a local, state, and national level. Meets the WP:GNG, in particular WP:SIGCOV which is made clear from this well-cited article from many reliable secondary sources. Brindille1 (talk)
• Keep for now The delete prerequisite is relevant events can be accurately and concisely organized to move. Cbls1911 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per rationale of Vanilla Wizard and Brindille1. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep – clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. WP:1E itself states If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.. Platner's role is clearly significant here. Even though he won't win or contest the general election, his primary victory is still highly notable as he defeated a sitting governor (lots of coverage of that) and sustains WP:LONGTERMSIGNIFICANCE. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep He's a notable person that meets GNG, even if he has failed to gain office. Some1 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The dust hasn't settled from his failed Senate run yet. Platner may do something else notable, not to mention that there are going to be consequences for both the individuals behind his campaign and the Democratic Party as a whole that is going to make him historically significant. Morris Katz is being run out of progressive politics by a pitchfork wielding mob as I write this and if Susan Collins gets reelected, Platner is going to be a major reason why. Reattacollector (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Withdraw per SNOW Olliefant (she/her) 23:32, 11 July 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.

Islam Elrayess

Islam Elrayess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO for lack of significant coverage and the notability appears to be hinged on a single event. So WP:1E also apply. Santa Saana (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Egypt. Santa Saana (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep

– Since this nomination, the article has been substantially improved with additional independent, reliable secondary sources from multiple established news organizations. These sources provide broader coverage of the subject beyond a single publication, and the article has been expanded accordingly. I believe the updated article should be reassessed against

WP:GNG

,

WP:ANYBIO

, and

WP:1E

based on its current state rather than the version that was originally nominated. ~~~~

7amoudy (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The only changes you've made to the article since its nomination have been to add additional vague references. The article is still only two sentences long and does not contain any assertion of notability. Omphalographer (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Since the nomination, I have substantially expanded the article beyond its original two-sentence version. It now includes dedicated sections covering the subject's background and business career, with information supported by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. The article no longer consists merely of references, but presents sourced content that explains the subject's career and activities. I would appreciate it if the article could be reassessed based on its current version rather than the version that was originally nominated. Thank you. 7amoudy (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TNT. - Amigao (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please don't use LLM to write votes as they are unpersuasive and are usually discarded. Since we have a claim of improvement can we have more input and discussion of any sources added. Are the improvements forbidden LLM text?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I cannot check the non-English sources, but the English text added to the article does sound like LLM, particularly His businesses have been featured in Egyptian media covering developments in the tourism and hospitality industry. which is very typical LLM "talk about the coverage, rather than the topic." M kuhner (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Also note that the claim in the author's post above about dedicated sections covering the subject's background and business career is itself a hallucination. M kuhner (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• I machine translated some of the sources (apologies for lack of language skills). Several are about an event in which this person was involved--I see why former criticisms talked about WP:ONEEVENT. Another is an interview; another is a promotional announcement. Given that the event isn't mentioned in the article it is hard to see how sources about it contribute to notability. Perhaps the author could identify the best 2-3 sources which discuss the subject as a business owner, in detail, and not based purely on quotes from him? M kuhner (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Its unclear why the subject is notable or merits a Wikipedia page. Business ventures good for him, but not sufficient for Wikipedia.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Half the coverage isn't about him and the other half is obvious puff pieces. There's not a single bit of reliable, independent SIGCOV. Fences&Windows 17:50, 15 July 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.

America Uncovered

America Uncovered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No in-depth independent coverage that makes it individually notable, all sources mention it [if at all] in association with China Uncensored. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Conservatism, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to China Uncensored (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to China Uncensored as an alternative to deletion. Notability has not been established by the sources cited. Citations 1 and 3 don't mention America Uncovered at all, while citations 2 and 4 are the subject's YouTube channel and video, respectively. Citation 5 mentions the channel in passing, because it is an interview of the channel's owner. Yue🌙 (talk) 08:07, 11 July 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.

Orion Group (recruitment company)

Orion Group (recruitment company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NORG; almost entirely primary sourced; written like promo (and also recent COI edit attempts) - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 10:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Scotland. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 10:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep as does have some reliable sources coverage such as BBC here, Inverness Courier here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 09:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete They exist but nothing major and marginal GNG. No go. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Run-of-the-mill corpospam. The references highlighted above are not nearly enough to satisfy WP:NCORP... "Business does business things" does not make for an encyclopedia article. MediaKyle (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

So should we only have articles on companies that do dodgy things ? which is becoming ridiculous in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep: This provides significant, in-depth coverage from a highly reliable source. Last of The Time (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have analysis of sources. Reminder that this falls under NORG, not GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. NORG demands more than a BBC article and some local press. Fences&Windows 17:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Another national reliable source piece in The Scotsman here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The BBC article fails WP:ORGTRIV. The first Inverness Courier article does too. The second Inverness Courier is closer to passing on that front but starts running to WP:ORGIND issues as it consists mostly of quotes from the founder. I would say the Scotsman piece passes just barely, but it's not enough by itself. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Also, moving away from formal notability rules. Every single article on a company imposes a burden on the Wikipedia community to keep it from turning into an ad. The less notable the company is the harder that is. Are you really sure you want to foist this burden on the community? * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:56, 17 July 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.

Balaclava Junction

Balaclava Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose Deleting as this article is poorly sourced and most of its sources are outdated tram route timetables, for an article like this timetables as sources are useless. An article like this as well is not really in our scope and isnt encyclopaedic . LachlanTansey (talk) 08:23, 24 June 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 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. While article currently relies too heavily on outdated timetables, the topic itself is notable. Balaclava Junction is the only surviving "Grand Union" tramway intersection in the Southern Hemisphere and officially registered and protected by Heritage Overlay status due to its architectural and engineering significance. But the page needs a major cleanup and injection of actual engineering and heritage sources. MissBVCC (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, as I agree with @MissBVCC. it is the only grand union junction in Australia. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 08:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The only independent and reliable source that provides significant coverage is the Heritage Victoria source. If there aren't any other such sources, then this article should be deleted. Steelkamp (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --NYC Guru (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It feels like we're somewhat lacking policy-based arguments for notability here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Question: Does the Victorian Heritage Database listing make it meet WP:NHERITAGE? This is a state database rather than a national one. WP:NHERITAGE asks for "cultural heritage or national heritage", however the listing states "The Grand Union Tramway Junction at Caulfield is of historic and scientific (technical) significance to the State of Victoria." Fork99 (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  NHERITAGE does say "national level", which this does not meet. I'd prefer to see this meet the general notability guideline anyhow. Steelkamp (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep: It is important to Melbourne and does give actual information. ~2026-30079-22 (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It can also be improved and expanded. ~2026-30079-22 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• probably merge though a precise target is obscure given the fragmentation of these articles. Look, yes, it's a grand union. No, there's not a great deal of coverage, judging from the article sourcing. It's something of a footnote to the entire tram system, not something that requires a whole fannish article. Most of the arguments made above are falling into various buckets of the "arguments not to make" variety, and no, I doubt it can be that much improved. Mangoe (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, have added four secondary cites from three secondary sources. Noritplere (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, trusting in the offline sources per AGF. A merge to Caulfield North would be OK too. Fences&Windows 18:04, 15 July 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.

Keikhosro Khoroush

Keikhosro Khoroush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very unverifiable BLP Completely unsourced BLP save for two sources... But they are user-editable and thus unreliable. (my bad, I was looking at a vandalized version of the page, but looking at the correct version, it's still very "barely" notable, which is definitely not the standards of a BLP). The article seems to have been recreated after speedied for G12. I'm not checking whether there is any egregious copyvio, but I did check on Google whether there were other sources, but there were none that could reasonably contribute to verifiability other than those that do exist and are in the article. Not to mention that the article needs severe ce, but that's not the main problem here — Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 12:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, a prolific author and painter, there are many sources in a language I can't read but others exist. Very likely notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete There isn't significant coverage to show notability. The sources in the article are not reliable sources. The biographic claims are uncited.Source assessment below. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88_%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B44			FA Wikipedia	✘ No
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/3965893/%D8%AA%D8%AC%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%84-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%DB%B6%DB%B0-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%81%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AA-%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88-%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B5%D9%87-%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B4%DB%8C			Press release - Celebrating the sixty years of Kaykhosrow's activity in the field of painting	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20171225165300/http://www.aquisuds.fr/12068-les-calligraphes-et-la-calligraphie/	Aquisuds (in French}		article about Iranian calligraphy. No mention of Keikhosro Khoroush found in the translation of translation.	✘ No
https://tehranauction.com/en/auction/keykhosro-khoroush-b-1941-3/	auction website		503 Service Unavailable	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20171216091222/http://tehranauction.com/en/auction/keykhosro-khoroush-b-1941-2/			auction results	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20171216091222/http://tehranauction.com/en/auction/keykhosro-khoroush-b-1941-2/			auction results	✘ No
https://www.artnet.com/artists/keykhosro-khoroush/untitled-ivXGdJPahLHlJBAd2BVGIA2	ArtNet		images of works auctioned	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20171216034844/http://tehranauction.com/en/auction/keykhosro-khoroush-b-1941/			auction results	✘ No
https://www.hamshahrionline.ir/news/140676/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88-%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B4-%DB%B1%DB%B3%DB%B2%DB%B0			looks like a press release posted on news aggregator	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20171216034918/http://tehranauction.com/en/auction/%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88-%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B4-1320-2/	auction website		503 Service Unavailable	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20171225165259/https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1397594.Keykhosro_Khoroush	Goodreads		user generated content	✘ No
https://www.honaronline.ir/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C-4/108117-%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88-%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%A2%D8%AB%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86%D9%84%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B4%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AF			listing for online art booth. looks like a press release	✘ 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}}.

Close

• Keep - none of us speak Persian, or do we? No, I thought not. The article is a trainwreck and the online sources mostly in Persian (not very surprisingly).. But it is pretty clear he is notable, and should not become another person deleted for not being American. One of the pages (briefly) free on Mutual Art (to which I do not subscribe) says he has sales at auction of $190K from 7 works, which is a lot for an Iranian artist, and strongly suggests notability. Unfortunately the links in the article to the Tehran auction house are almost completely useless as they don't give lots #s and just go to the main page, rather than the page for the item, like this $21K landscape found via google. That the article's bio details are not adequately referenced doesn't matter much, or at all, for notability. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Farsi Wikipedia has a profile in Hamshahri, and the article here has coverage from Mehr News Agency.. I found this also in Mehr , Borna News, YJC. Now, I hate the obsequious tone of the Iranian press as much as anyone, but I tried to pick the best. In a non-free state it's the best we've got. There's many more news articles with him being honoured in various ways for his calligraphy and painting. He seems very well-known, so a weak keep. Fences&Windows 18:33, 15 July 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.

District Government of Umerkot

District Government of Umerkot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Under WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article is mostly based on archived government sources, and it does not have significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Weichan123 (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related AfD discussions. Weichan123 (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Umerkot District per WP:OVERLAP Dragon22121 (talk) 17:10, 12 July 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.

Jaffa Port

Jaffa Port (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is no more than a typical section in size and it is suffering from lack of attention and sourcing (for 11 years). Combining it into Old Jaffa will simplify maintenance and combine sourcing. Same argument can be made for Yefet Street. The two subregions (geographic regions) can be detailed in a Subregions heading while the rest of the attractions remain under attractions. Jaffa Port and Yefet Street are large sections of Old Jaffa while the other attractions are individual buildings. It works better categorically. Alatari (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:58, 3 July 2. 26 (UTC)

* Keep Article is in ER at moment, but the port has significant historical importance. I recall it was where wood arrived in 1st and 2nd centuries, headed for Jerusalem. Needs fixes not deletion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is rather weak and also discusses matters that belong to Old Yafo so technically nom stands correct in their claim that the current text is best merged. The slightest improvements, however, could change that. Plus the port is extremely notable and the idea to merge Yefet Street into Old Jaffa is extremely wrong. So, while I can support nom's suggestion, in reality this would not be a stable solution and people then might think that there is some issue with the port's notability (AfDs are often approached through their most important dimension). The real gain is to be made in the article space and not by more AfDs. gidonb (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, and I wish I had time to expand the article... Maybe some day... May be we can talk you into expanding it. It deserves it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your awesome contributions to Wikipedia! Though also very busy, I have improved the Old Jaffa and Yefet Street articles in the past so this is tempting. Wikipedia is a hobby since 2003 and I am still making my rounds. Today I made headers for Teach-In (band). It doesn't always need to be Israeli geography. ;-) gidonb (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Now I am gradually remembering that wood was brought down from the north on the Mediterranean, then by road to Jerusalem. So it was an important port. Just needs sources. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

* Keep I agree that this is of historical significance and should be kept. It is one of the oldest ports in the world, first built close to 4000 years ago and many of the major historical events of this region past through this port. I volunteer to edit. lynngol (talk)

• I have begun editing the page and will continue in the next few days.Lynngol (talk) 07:22, 19 July 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.

List of biomedical engineering institutions in India

List of biomedical engineering institutions in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of meeting WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Medicine, Lists, and India. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Also Might be generated using AI LLM model as refs might be fake or smth Flightreacts2k23 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Likely AI-generated list (fails WP:NOLLM) that is sourced entirely to non-independent sources (the schools themselves) with no source on the topic in the aggregate, failing WP:NLIST. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:35, 11 July 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.

Jas Kalra

Jas Kalra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bringing this to AFD as the subject doesn't meet WP:THREE. The only decent source is from betterindia.com. Other sources are mostly routine or brand affiliates. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete – unfortunately. We have many independent sources, but they don't appear to provide significant coverage of Kalra. Every source basically says the exact same set of things: this is a 20-something who runs a nonprofit founded by his father and provides services to the elderly and homeless. Beyond a couple stats on how many people they've helped at certain points in time, we don't have much, and I don't think there is enough coverage of Kalra to support a Wikipedia article. It doesn't help that a couple of these sources seem to be paid. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Based on the sources, i can say the topic appears to meet WP:ANYBIO. Last of The Time (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Please delete May be AI gen Flightreacts2k23 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong Keep. I see articles here from The Economic Times, The Quint, The Times of India, The Better India (twice), DNA India, BW Businessworld, Eastern Herald, The Financial Express... definitely keep IMO Jishara (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

* Delete Too soon, come back in 3 years, we'll will see if you have done anything yourself. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources have been offered, can we have a source analysis please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Indian press is notorious for churnalism, but the sources Jishara shared seem relatively OK though might still be planted coverage. Eastern Herald is definitely AI slop. Fences&Windows 18:46, 15 July 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.

FC Farsley

FC Farsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article shows no significant coverage of the new club from reliable secondary sources. Most of the material present either relates to older iterations of the club or is from the club itself. In my view this article should be deleted and a couple of lines added to Farsely Celtic which also includes material relating to Farsley Celtic F.C. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Farsley Celtic F.C., have a sub-section there about the phoenix club. GiantSnowman 10:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Farsley Celtic F.C. for now, until it gains notability.

Wlaak (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:13, 12 July 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.

Kenneth Mensah

Kenneth Mensah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reason Meesher (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. While I certainly believe he wasn't ready as of the time of the article's creation on March 1, a new wave of articles have come out about him (since he was loaned to Scarborough Athletic in mid-to-late March) which seem to provide significant coverage to get him thru GNG. 22:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Jishara (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Far too soon. Let him score more goals, then we will see. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: while another "delete" opinion has already been expressed, the nominator has not yet provided a rationale beyond Reason, which is of course not a reason for anything. (No opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, nowhere close to notable yet. Did not play a single game for Scarborough. Geschichte (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - whilst no reason has been given by nom, there is no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have some discussion of the sources and maybe address whether this is 1E as the discussion says some sources relate to a loan move. None of the votes so far are substantive or policy based. Do feel free to come back and state a position based on policy or the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! For clarity, I voted above, but I'm here to provide a clearer view on what my opinion is (Keep). i'm definitely not saying the sources on there are enough for a keep. what I am saying, however, is that after a quick WP:BEFORE, i'm seeing Yorkshire Evening Post, Yorkshire Post (diffeerent papers) Scarborough News, and Kick Ghana articles on him which get him by Jishara (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I saw two highly routine transactional announcements in the Yorkshire Evening Post that are little more than press releases (14 July 2026, somehow, 27 March 2026), another utterly routine transfer announcement from Yorkshire Post (27 March 2026, from the same Leeds United announcement), and a statement from Scarborough Athletic published unaltered in Scarborough News (27 March 2026, about the same transfer). All the KickGH articles I saw were routine match reports or transaction announcements, and the site doesn't even look like RS (no bylines, no published editorial standards, contact is a Gmail address...). These don't come close to counting toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Source assessment:

Sofascore database profile

leedsunited.com non-independent

leedsunited.com non-independent

LeedsAllOver full of fluff

South Leeds Life mere name mention

• Geschichte (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources identified so far are useless for GNG. LeedsAllOver is signing hype of indeterminate reliability N, South Leeds Life is a "guest post" N from the subject's middle school years N that gives him a single namedrop N. JoelleJay (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per JoelleJay's source analysis. C679 07:03, 17 July 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.

Raymond Jungles Inc.

Raymond Jungles Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The two articles seem relatively inseparable of one another. Merging to the person seems more fit as I think he has a bit more notability independent of the corporation based on news articles on Google. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: for clarity (the tag says so, but the nomination statement comes a bit short), this is a proposal to merge to Raymond Jungles. Separately, the company article has been tagged as a potential NCORP failure since 2021. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT. FaviFake (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. Best for readers. Fences&Windows 21:49, 15 July 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.

Controversy surrounding the Egypt-Argentina match at the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Controversy surrounding the Egypt-Argentina match at the 2026 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not nearly notable enough given all reliable sources explain that this is a nothingburger being blown out of proportion, and every single tournament ever has refereeing decisions that make losing fans upset. Clearly violates WP:NPOV, as evidenced by simply reading the article, coupled with the fact that it was created by a user from Egypt. Purpley24 (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Purpley24 (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to emphasize that your words are completely wrong. The sources do not say what you say at all. I advise you to do as I did and go read the sources attached to the article.

The second thing regarding the law of impartiality is that the article clearly states the opinion and the other opinion, and this is something I was keen to add to be as neutral as possible. As I mentioned in a note in one of my edits, most of the sources speak against Argentina and FIFA, so I am trying to be as neutral as the reliable sources available, and this is what the other article that you are trying to convert my article to lacks, as the other article only writes a scattered paragraph about the match and does not mention the other opinion.

Thirdly, whether I am Egyptian or not has nothing to do with writing an article about this match. What you have the right to question is the content of the article and not my nationality or ethnicity because there is no law in Wikipedia that says I cannot write about a specific topic because I am of a specific nationality.

Also, your use of words like “nothingburger” is unprofessional. Be a little respectful, please, because it seems that you are speaking with emotion, which blinds you from impartiality. Wikipedia is a free place. You can write about any event as long as you abide by the rules. Your opinion about the matter does not matter Egyptiankeng (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a WP:POVFORK of content already covered at List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies, created days after the match (WP:NOTNEWS). Beyond the duplication, the article fails WP:NPOV through WP:CHERRYPICKING: it cites the New York Times piece (ref 9) whose own headline calls the conspiracy talk "nonsense", and France 24's "Truth or Fake" fact-check debunking the viral "rigged" claims (ref 4), yet reflects none of that, using only the parts of those sources that support one side. Several claims are stated in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributed (WP:YESPOV), e.g. the "Emam Ashour was slapped" heading. Also, there are no statements about the fouls commited by Egypt against Argentina that went unnoticed. The genuinely notable, well-sourced material already sits at the list with due weight. Veehmot (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's good that you signed your name. I thought you wouldn't. I wasn't able to respond to you a little while ago

  Your statement is based on the basis and assumption that I am saying that what happened is a “conspiracy,” while there is nothing in my article that says this, so using the New York Times article and others confirms my neutrality in the first place.

  And yes, I cited those sources in one aspect because the paragraph I was writing was talking about this aspect, while in the next paragraph, when I wrote the opposing opinion, I included a source that supports this opposing opinion instead of repeating the sources in two paragraphs.

  Regarding slapping Imam Ashour, this is what the source says, not me, and there are no reliable sources that talk about Egypt’s mistakes, so I will not write anything that there is no reliable source that supports it.

  You can always freely contribute to Wikipedia, so please edit the article and add what you see as more neutral Egyptiankeng (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Egypt, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete this is pretty much the same content as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIFA World Cup Argentinian controversies and the same rationale holds. Spike 'em (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  My article contains the opinion and the other opinion, and it is more specific, unlike the other article, which talks about the Argentine matches comprehensively and does not present the other opinion, so your statement is incorrect. Egyptiankeng (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  I stand by my points and also think WP:BLUDGEON is relevant here. Spike 'em (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - please note that the article has been moved to Controversy surrounding the Argentina-Egypt match at the 2026 FIFA World Cup and then Controversy surrounding Argentina vs Egypt at the 2026 FIFA World Cup. All three versions of this title would need deleting if consensus ends up being to delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, moving a page twice whilst there is an active AfD is not helpful. Spike 'em (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have reverted the page moves. GiantSnowman 08:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  thanks, I did try myself but the redirects got in the way! Spike 'em (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies dedicates a lot of space to this match already. Why do we then need a separate article as well? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see an article that talks about the match. I see a paragraph in an article that generally talks about the tournament Egyptiankeng (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

There are 7 paragraphs about the match. That is more than enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

For subjects like this one, the main article is usually too long and makes navigation difficult for certain users. Otherwise, I would add {{Very long}} template there. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - as above, total overkill, already adequately covered in List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies. GiantSnowman 08:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is no exaggeration and it was not covered as much as I covered it. You cannot compare a paragraph to an article Egyptiankeng (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are currently 8 paragraphs about the Argentina vs Egypt match in that article, see here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete-There is plenty of controversial decision happened in various fifa matches but creating a seperate article for this particular match controversy is redundant and it should be only present in List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for very heavy recentism bias. This is an encyclopedia, not a newssite. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - It's unnecessary redundancy. There is nothing stated in the article herein that isn't covered on the respective subtopic on the List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies article. Although I do agree there was an unfair treatment towards Egypt on that match, this is getting a little out of hand. We could promote that subtopic from under the Officiating Controversies section to its own section if more information becomes avaliable, though. AleatoryOne (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies article is over 19,000 words. That is way too long and necessitates some kind of content split. This could serve as that.~2026-38468-73 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't an actual controversy. It's fan disappointment and delusion which has unfortunately been boosted by Brandolini's law. Every team and their fan base will feel aggrieved by the performance of the match officials, but it's not encyclopedia worthy. RedBlueGreen93 19:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Considering Egypt’s official football organization requested officials to be fired, I’d say it is, even if the call is correct. We have an article for Dez Caught It, even though that was the correct call. And the match still receives coverage as of today, six days later. LindseyGraham129 (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  A marquee matchup during a competition receiving coverage is standard fare. Neither is coverage less than a week later notable (you would've to consider something like WP:10YEARS).

  PS: That username appears to be a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. Gotitbro (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons given by AleatoryOne. Wlaak (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies #Argentina vs Egypt where this is mentioned as a WP:ATD-R. To be very clear, I would only support deletion in the case of the content being deleted from the target page if the content there also violates WP:NPOV. But a Redirect is what I am thinking here. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand the need for a redirect though. The article's title isn't even formatted correctly (teams are in wrong order and matches in titles are usually styled as Argentina v Egypt or something of the sort, not with a hyphen). Even then; if—as most people in this thread agree—it does not warrant this page, then creating a redirect for such a long and unfitting title seems pointless. Purpley24 (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable enough and leave just on the controversy pageMuur (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, WP:NPOV , WP:COI , WP:DISINFO and WP:NOTFORUM . Publicwalrus (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There is no controversy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to try and create their own narrative (WP:NOR) about one team rigging the World Cup. RedBlueGreen93 17:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and do not merge per nom, Veehmot and Publicwalrus. This is pathetic, fans should go cry elsewhere instead of wasting people's time here just because they're convinced their team was robbed; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. S.A. Julio (talk)
• Delete per WP:FRINGE Ubenhagen (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: As mentioned by others it is already covered List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies and belongs there, not significant enough for an entire article on the subject.

Timd21 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39359-33 (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Not significant enough in my view for a whole article. Some of the content may belong in List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies – although that article has recently become too long with excessive detail about some fairly minor controversies. Encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Spike 'em. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies #Argentina vs Egypt as an ATD. मल्ल (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Page seems to mostly just be a way to accuse the referee of being biased towards Argentina, or to accuse the referee of "working on behalf of Israel" as implied by brigaded edits from offsite. Best to just delete the page entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeaponizingArchitecture (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I have reviewed the objections raised in this discussion and find that they stem from personal opinions rather than any genuine issue violating Wikipedia policies. The article addresses a public controversy witnessed by millions—a fact easily confirmed by a quick look at Twitter or international newspapers, whether sports-related or general. As for the objection regarding the existence of two other articles on the same topic, I do not consider it accurate; those articles cover broader subjects and merely include the Egypt vs. Argentina match as a section within a much larger piece—and, notably, one of them is currently nominated for deletion. I have strived to maintain neutrality and have invited everyone to edit the article as they see fit to improve it, which is the very purpose of Wikipedia. Egyptiankeng (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  How can we have a content fork about controversy for a match that doesn't even have an article itself? If the Argentina vs Egypt match passes WP:SPORTSEVENT then it may qualify for an article. We would only then create a content fork for the controversies if it became necessary to do a WP:SIZESPLIT. In all my years on Wikipedia, this is the first time that I've seen a sub-article created prior to an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:SPORTSEVENT? I don't know if you're serious or joking; are you really still wondering whether the match between Egypt and Argentina was a major game that received extensive media coverage or not? Egyptiankeng (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's a World Cup knockout match. Every game at this stage is going to receive extensive media coverage and every referee decision and manager decision is going to be scrutinised heavily. We're not a tabloid newspaper, though, and don't need to publish absolutely everything that the media posts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  The other article was also written by a disgruntled Egypt fan directly after the match. Wait for a few months and see if it is still being mentioned as any match in the knockout stages of the world cup will have a similar amount of coverage. Spike 'em (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are bringing up my nationality again; I do not consider this appropriate behavior. For the last time, my nationality is irrelevant to the matter. I write about whatever I wish, provided I adhere to Wikipedia's rules

  Regarding the article "List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies" that you keep mentioning: I have checked it, and literally all it says about the Egypt vs. Argentina match is two and a half lines; it actually links to my article as a reference. Therefore, my article is indispensable, as no one else on Wikipedia has written about the match. My article complies with Wikipedia's policies; if you believe otherwise, please edit it to make it suitable for the platform—otherwise, I see no reason for its deletion. Egyptiankeng (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  If this game is being talked about more than all the other knockout games at this World Cup in a few months then I'd support creating a neutral article about the game as a whole, not just the controversies. At the moment it is not at all balanced. The game last night was very disappointing, but I have not yet considered creating Thomas Tuchel's substitution failures in Argentina Vs England 2026 World Cup semi-final, which had sparked huge amount of coverage in the British media. Spike 'em (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  That editors believe otherwise is the reason this is at AfD in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  and the content at main article had been restored. Spike 'em (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Largely duplicating another item under AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIFA World Cup Argentinian controversies. WP:POVFORK. Gotitbro (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  The article you attached contains only two and a half lines about the Egypt vs. Argentina match; where is the repetition in my article? What exactly am I repeating? Am I repeating something that isn't even there? Egyptiankeng (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is the topic we're talking about. Please drop the abrasiveness and the bludgeon. Gotitbro (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  That AfD has closed with "The result was delete and redirect to List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies. Explicitly not merging as there is a clear consensus this content fails our standards." I think we know what to do here. Gotitbro (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear WP:CFORK. Longhornsg (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Where is the article I am branching off from? Egyptiankeng (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Let's not feed fans with biased, sensationalist pages. ~2026-40093-76 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Unnecessary to fork this topic when it could just be part of the main controversies article in a reasonable length and the bludgeoning in this AfD doesn't help. RollonLaurent (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOTTABLOID applies and all of the important info is already covered here. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion Contentious referee decisions always generate discussion from media pundits and, yes, this will appear on websites for WP:RS from time to time but we need to be strict about what warrants its own article. If this match still gets significant coverage more than 6 months later then maybe we can write an article on the match at that point but it would be under the title Argentina v Egypt (2026 FIFA World Cup), which is the standard naming style for a WC match. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:DISINFO and WP:NOTFORUM. Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIFA World Cup Argentinian controversies.--Faustino Sojo (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Clear WP:NPOV, WP:DISINFO and WP:NOTFORUM and consider to prevent the creation directly--FelipeRev (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)