Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 July 7

2026 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash

2026 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash (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)

As article states Mi-17 crashes in Pakistan are relatively common so this one needs to stand out, which it does not. High fatalities do not guarantee inclusion of Wikipedia. Given the fact it involved a military aircraft, it is unlikely more information will ever come out any time soon. Relton66 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Military aircraft crashes are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is notable enough for the mainspace.See U in world (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate? Relton66 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MILL, nothing unique about this crash that justifies a page. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete run-of-the-mill military helicopter crash. No sign of continuing coverage beyond the initial news cycle nor any realistic likelihood that any in-depth coverage will occur. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:MILL, not notable for an article and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Unlikely that there will be continued coverage. Khalitate (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL This is a military aircraft accident which lacks any historical significant independent coverage needed for a standalone article page. Staticspector (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Not a unique event. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:46, 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.

Model Engine

Model Engine (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)

Unreferenced. No significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Google search shows mainly social media, blogs, etc Paul W (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Music-related AfD discussions. Paul W (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I have also done searches and find very little. There is an entry in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music for them as well as one for Black Eyed Sceva which the encyclopedia describes as the same band with a different drummer. That band also seems to lack RS coverage. Oblivy (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:02, 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.

Nintendo hard

Nintendo hard (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 TA, @~2026-37890-70, said (diff) this article would be perhaps better merged to Game balance, but did not transclude the merge template properly. I have no opinion on this article and am only doing this as a courtesy to the TA. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, game balance is already a bloated target. It covers multiplayer game balance, balance between different game systems as a game design concept, difficulty levels, and the general idea of a difficult game under one umbrella, Nintendo hard being the last of those. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I agree with the sentiment below that this current article is deficient, but I think difficulty (video games) would probably work as a standalone that encompasses Nintendo hard, rather than increasing the already 5,900 word game balance article. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I like MidnightMayhem's alternate target of Merge to Glossary of video game terms. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support a merge – Many of the sources in the article don't even mention "Nintendo hard". My main concern is that the article lists several games as being considered very difficult, but the sources don't actually describe or refer to them as "Nintendo hard". That feels like borderline original research. I think that content should be removed, and the term itself merged into game balance since we Morogris (✉ • ✎) 22:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that the section (list of games) should either be removed completely, or trimmed to only sources that use the term "Nintendo hard" to describe the games explicitly. Right now they are judging the difficulty of the games in retrospect in a way that probably does not perfectly match how the term was used at the time. I would be happy to go through the seven sources if the article is kept, to see if there is anything worth keeping from them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - unless there's substantially more to be said here, there's absolutely not enough to warrant a separate article for this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Glossary of video game terminology. Insufficient sourcing for a full article on the topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose merge to game balance – I don't think Game balance is at all a good target for any of this content: this was a meme that might not have even been all that accurate in retrospect. It probably wouldn't warrant a sentence in our description of what 'game balance' is; that's not what this article is about at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Maplestrip Do you support keeping the standalone article, or would you prefer a different merge target? FaviFake (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  See the comment below. Wasn't sure how to clearly communicate that I clearly opposed the suggested merge target while also that I only weakly care about keeping the article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep in general – I think the sourcing works well enough to establish this concept as a cultural moment notable for encyclopedic description. It's not strong sourcing, but this is certainly a 'thing' that warrants more in-depth description than what Wiktionary or the Glossary of terminology should provide. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Glossary of video game terms. The sourcing here is not great, but game balance is a poor merge target as it mostly covers general game design principles and not discussion of specific games. This article is already listed in Template:Video game gameplay and I think the handful of sources here that do actually use the term can be merged to the glossary article. MidnightMayhem (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge - little more than a informal slogan to describe older difficult video games. Open to merging wherever consensus dictages. It could mostly be summed up in a glossary entry, so that may be the best area. One may be able to argue it belongs in some sort of Nintendo#Legacy type subsection, though honestly that's not really the sort of legacy Nintendo has left behind, so that may not be ideal either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  How about in Nintendo Entertainment System#Legacy? I think that's a perfect match! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge To Glossary of video game terms. This article doesn't have enough significant coverage to standalone under WP:GNG Staticspector (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Glossary of video game terms not enough lasting significant coverage for it's own page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:12, 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.

Santa Anita Golf Course

Santa Anita Golf Course (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)

An ultra-detailed article of a golf course, which even numbers each golf hole one by one! No references, while after a brief online search no major, notable coverage can be found in general. If any part is notable can be incorporated in Arcadia County Park, since the article as standalone itself is clearly without WP:GNG, or at least WP:TNT. Chiserc (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Golf and California. Chiserc (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with Arcadia County Park: Arcadia County Park mentions Santa Anita Park in the lead, but no mention in body and might be helpful to add a section for Santa Anita Park - with brief detail and history if sources available. ~2026-36824-29 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  All three, the golf course, the race track and the park were constructed in the five year window. The course and the park were a county project but the race track was private. You could make a case for the park and the course to be on the same page, but there's not much notable history to write about for the park. The course is a significant architectural example of period construction that has retained its quality even as the game has evolved. I'll add some examples and attribution. T308 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. I am not opposed to a redirect here. Golf sources are never automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Arcadia County Park

TPI81AF (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge This page fails to meet WP:GNG. It should be merged into Arcadia County Park. Staticspector (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge is acceptable. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 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.

Gayathri Ashok

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

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

Only significant role is in the movie Member Rameshan 9aam Ward while other roles being minor. Fails NACTOR. Sources are of WP:NEWSORGINDIA in nature. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"Only significant role is in the movie Member Rameshan 9aam Ward while other roles being minor." is inaccurate, She has at least two significant roles in notable productions, the one that the nominator acknowledges and "The Young Girl" (despite the generic name for the role it is one of the lead roles) in Footage. See reviews mentioning her performance in that film, for example: https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/reviews/malayalam/footage-film-review-an-experimental-film-that-offers-a-thrilling-experience-review-112738184/amp, https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/malayalam/footage-malayalam-movie-review/ etc. Therefore a WP:NACTRESS pass, not a fail. So Keep. ~2026-35976-24 (talk) 21:22, 23 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)} 12:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. In addition to Footage and Member Rameshan 9aam Ward, she also played a lead in Ladoo. meets NACTOR. Jishara (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Filmography seems to be significant but not the roles. Sources are either pre-release interviews by the subject or about the films themselves, where she is only trivially mentioned. If you dig into the reviews, she is covered in only a single line in full-length reviews, indicating that these are not lead/significant roles. Fails NACTOR/GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for the relist @Gommeh:.

Regarding the statement that "Filmography seems to be significant but not the roles"/"these are not lead/significant roles", I feel obligated to indicate that it is very incorrect.

To quote the 2 reviews above -and that is without even the critical appraisal of her performance that such reviews can contain-: "The performances of the lead cast, Vishak Nair, Gayathri Ashok and Manju Warrier, are what makes the film a standout experience"; "Footage features three major characters played by Manju Warrier, Vishak Nair, and Gayathri Ashok." (In Footage). That's one.

She's obviously, as the nominator indicated, in the main cast of Member Rameshan 9aam Ward (see poster or https://www.onmanorama.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/2022/02/24/arjun-ashokan-member-rameshan-9aam-ward-review.html#google_vignette That's two.

Her role in Ladoo is also significant; most reviews call her the heroine, again, have a look at the poster if you have no time to read the reviews or see the film, or for example check https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/review/2018/Nov/17/ladoo-review-a-cliched-comedy-that-occasionally-entertains-1899166.html with a whole paragraph about her. That's three.

She's also on the poster of Star; the actress is obviously part of the main cast (https://www.onmanorama.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/2021/10/29/star-movie-review-deflate-myths.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/dhyan-sreenivasans-next-with-gayathri-ashok-titled-swargathile-katturumbu/articleshow/91254828.cms) That's four. Feel free to check the other films.

Some details of her biography can be sourced through interviews such as https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/111118/this-ladoo-promises-to-be-sweet.html or https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/music/its-a-lot-of-fun-when-you-have-a-partner-like-purbayaan-who-is-tuned-to-your-frequency-gayatri-asokan/articleshow/80894489.cms for a start. --~2026-38593-76 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

You have only confirmed what I said. The lead actors are mentioned around 4-5 times, whereas the subject is given only a single line in most of the reviews. The entire paragraph you cited with respect to Ladoo discusses her character in the film, while her performance itself is described in just one line, "And newcomer Soorya Gayathri Ashok carries herself very convincingly".

• Here is an example from the review you shared above, Member Rameshan 9aam Ward, Indrans: "A notable performance has been showcased by veteran actor Indrans as Rameshan's father. Indran's got very little dialogues, but his amazing acting prowess comes into view when he delivers plenty of emotions without even speaking."
• Whereas for the subject - "Actors Gayathri Ashok, Shabareesh Varma, Maamukkoya, Sabumon and Johny Antony have all played their parts well and have contributed to keeping the movie worth watching." She has been clubbed with 4 other actors.

Subject is nowhere close to fulfilling WP:NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith but there seems to be a confusion here. "The entire paragraph you cited with respect to Ladoo discusses her character in the film, while her performance itself is described in just one line"....ergo a significant role (i.e. a part played by an actor in this case), as are at least the other three. That there are other roles as significant as these or even (one) more significant role(s) in a given production does not imply that they are not significant; there is generally more than just one significant role in a film. These are no minor roles (for example, you don't put the pictures of actors portraying minor roles on film posters, in general), far from it, they are verifiably significant and the productions, notable. That's a WP:NACTRESS pass (#1:"The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films-"). (Same person; new TA, for some reason). ~2026-38843-54 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That's certainly not how Indian cinema works. If you think merely appearing throughout a film without any impact(reviews) counts as a significant role, then every Tom, Dick and Harry in Indian cinema would qualify for an article. You're also being rather ignorant if you are unaware of how many posters production houses put out for marketing in India, having a face on a poster holds little to no value in that context. And the lack of reviews for Ladoo and the absence of independent sources about the subject indicates the same Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"That's certainly not how Indian cinema works": I am not sure what this has to do with Indian cinema in particular. "If you think merely appearing throughout a film without any impact(reviews) counts as a significant role, then every Tom, Dick and Harry in Indian cinema would qualify for an article.": not every Tom, Dick and Harry in Indian or any other film industry, only the ones sources describe as having main/lead/major or otherwise significant roles in notable productions. Sure, call me ignorant if you wish but again, being on a film poster is a rather good and clear indication that a role is possibly significant. Not sure what you call "the lack of reviews on Ladoo" when you have one above with a whole paragraph about her role. ~2026-38843-54 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

AfDs are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and cases like these are precisely why we have WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA etc. Your general standard that a subject’s presence on posters indicates notability does not apply here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"Your general standard that a subject’s presence on posters indicates notability does not apply here": that's bordering on the disingenuous! That's absolutely not what I said but it's very easy to check that. As for NEWSORGINDIA, I am fully aware of what that information page says; I am referring to the relevant notability guideline and to existing sources in full knowledge of it and I am truly wondering where I could have given the impression that I was not discussing Gayathri Ashok's individual notability and that I had forgotten that "AfDs (we)re evaluated on a case-by-case basis". I'll leave it at that as I'm starting to feel there's no point in presenting any further arguments or sources. ~2026-38843-54 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom TPI81AF (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I did some google searches she is mentioned in passing on the Times of India but definitely doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV yet for her own page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NACTOR. Disagree with Tom, Dick and Harry argument above. WP:NEWSORGINDIA calls for extra caution in case of undeclared sponsored content not for ignoring Indian sources and is not relevant for assessing how significant an actor's role is in a given film. Taghdtaighde (talk) 00:29, 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.

Malawi 24

Malawi 24 (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)

Lacks significant coverage by third party sources. It has been used as a source by other sources but nothing covers this organization in depth so it fails WP:SIGCOV Morogris (✉ • ✎) 20:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Organizations. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 20:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Malawi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom The article fails WP:GNG because it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Staticspector (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Did a few searches hoping to find something of note but there isn't anything notable about this paper. Ground News includes it onj it's website, but that's about it. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:28, 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.

Ron Kawamara

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

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

Fails GNG. Sources are mostly routine and brand affiliates. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• KEEP. The article is not well written but Kawamara is notable as there are quite a few sources. Dualpendel (talk)

~~

• 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) 20:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole Keep is without merit, but we don't have quorum to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:PROMO this read's like someone's CV. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:49, 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.

Luxembourg-Cents

Luxembourg-Cents (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 stub seemingly tries to be both about a "residential area" (the Cents district, for which an article already exists) and a stadium, the notability of which is very dubious. The city's website does not even list a name for it. Merge into either Cents, Luxembourg or F.C. Luxembourg City. Procrastineur (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Football, and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT. FaviFake (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. GiantSnowman 18:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Into Cents, Luxembourg. This page is too short for it to be its own article. It would be better placed within the main page. Staticspector (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Into Cents, Luxembourg as the more potentially useful target/location. C679 11:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge into Cents, Luxembourg as an alternative to deletion. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:51, 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.

Log Cabin Camp, Illinois

Log Cabin Camp, 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)

Fails WP:NPLACE, Sourced only the unreliable GNIS database. No evidence that this place is a unincorporated community. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• delete Searching is failing due to the common appearance of the term, but looking at the older topos it's quite clear that this started out as a literal camp along the river. The Google car stopped part way in because someone put up a private property sign beyond which the bulk of the houses lie, but the sign there doesn't say anything like this and without some text documentation of the older place there's really nothing here. But it's definitely not a town called "Log Camp Camp" now. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 8 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.

Sollitt, Illinois

Sollitt, 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)

Fails WP:NPLACE, Sourced only the unreliable GNIS database. No evidence that this place is a unincorporated community. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. It's the local store and a grain elevator: Not a place by our standards. SenshiSun (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Easily notable, it just needed a little work. A number of sources refer to it as a village, and a 1932 government report gave it a population of 53.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• keep per above, and a look at even a present-day aerial shows the town. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep It is a documented place and as per WP:NPLACE it is supported by historical government records Staticspector (talk) 15:18, 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.

Sugar Island, Illinois

Sugar Island, 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)

Fails WP:NPLACE. No evidence that this place is a unincorporated community. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

No secondary (source) evidence, I assume you mean? The USG seemingly acknowledges it as an "unincorporated place".  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: improved. its notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• keep as besides the above sourcing, a quick look at the aerials shows a town there. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 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.

Institute of Corporate Directors

Institute of Corporate Directors (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 sources and a vanity article for an unknown organization. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2023. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Padreburgos2020 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independent reliable sources. Staticspector (talk) 22:28, 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.

Philadelphia Reading Olympics

Philadelphia Reading Olympics (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 the Free Library of Philadelphia main article. Currently, this page is written entirely in a WP:PROMO and WP:NOTGUIDE manner, and while I recognize that deletion is not cleanup, there's simply no WP:SIGCOV of this event that I could find that would justify a WP:CFORK from the not-too-long main Free Library article. Best I could find is an extremely passing mention in this article (1) about working at the library and a mention of it being cancelled in 2020 due to covid (2). Yojo98 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Education, and Pennsylvania. Yojo98 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Support merge. It's a yearly reading event for kids. There's not enough significant news coverage out there. SenshiSun (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Per nom this subject fails WP:GNG. It should be merged into Free Library of Philadelphia. Staticspector (talk) 23:57, 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.

Tricks (C21 song)

Tricks (C21 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only user-generated sources (Discogs and Rate Your Music). No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NMUSIC, did not chart, win awards or certifications. Establishing notability for the Stay Pop albums would probably be a good start, if possible. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted that according to Wikipedia:Record charts, iTunes charts are not reliable. I am also nominating the following related articles:

Here's To Life (C21 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One Of Us Is Lonely (C21 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gert7 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect all to C21 (group). No WP:SIGCOV in the cited sources, and I couldn't find any in my own searches either beyond the rare passing mention in Danish media and this Scandipop article about "Tricks". But I don't know if Scandipop is reliable, and it barely discusses the song anyway, so not SIGCOV. All three tracks appear to fail WP:NSONG. TeoTB * 08:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect all to the group page. Three sources per article that include unreliable sources such as "Rate Your Music", "Discogs" and iTunes for a chart position, which the comment above affirms is unreliable. The three singles fail WP:NSONG and needs multiple sources to meet notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect all to C21 (group)#Singles. I couldn't find any sources with WP:SIGCOV, let alone passing WP:SONG. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect To C21 (group) The article fails WP:NSONG as it lacks reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV Staticspector (talk) 22:38, 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.

Fully normalized subgroup

Fully normalized subgroup (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 only usage of fully normalized subgroup I could find in reliable sources was in reference to fusion systems. Likewise in search engines and MSE/MO. Our definition here seems to be in some other sense that I cannot find citations for. Maybe they are one and the same (I am no expert on fusion systems), but regardless, I have found no references for the more general definition. I could only find the definition of a fully F-normalized subgroup, where F is a fusion system. I do not think that fully F-normalized subgroups are notable enough to warrant their own page, so rather than changing this into a page on fully F-normalized subgroups, I believe this page should be deleted.

If an expert someday notices the abject lack of a "fully normalized/F-normalized subgroup" page on wikipedia, it could be recreated then. Doable7366 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related AfD discussions. Doable7366 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – Fails WP:GNG, I also tried to find pages that included this general definition and couldn't find anything. I believe that Vipul may have coined the term in this use, as a search comes up with this result to a paper by him that I can't access. But even if this paper defines it, it is still not notable. Freddieh9 (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Possibly that reference is to https://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Extensible_automorphisms_problem or something related. (Though it does not contain the phrase "fully normalized", it clearly discusses ideas that are closely related.) At Vipul writes I came up with the question and solved this problem based on some existing research, but later discovered that I’d been scooped by about 20 years but neglects to give the actual reference. I see at least two definitions of the phrase "fully normalized" in the context of fusion systems (see my comment on the article talk-page) but if they are (even in some cases) equivalent to the definition in our article, that is not obvious. There's also something very odd about the phrase the Weyl group of the subgroup in the article, since in standard usage "the Weyl group of X" requires X to be one of a small number of possible kinds of things, and "normal subgroup of an arbitrary group" is definitely not on the list.

  In summary, I have spent a medium amount of effort and not been able to find any reliable sources that verify the content of this article at all. --JBL (talk) 23:25, 9 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.

Pârâul Negru (Someș)

Pârâul Negru (Someș) (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)

At best a very minor river, supposedly a tributary of the Apa Caldă in Cluj County, but not shown on this detailed hiking map. Was prod-ed and de-prod-ed in May 2026 referring to this news article, which refers to a different river in Sibiu County. Markussep ^Talk 11:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Romania. Markussep ^Talk 11:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Too small of a tributary to maintain a standalone page. Besides, found no appropriate target to redirect. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 7 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.

Officer (2026 film)

Officer (2026 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough significant coverage other than inclusion in lists of 8/9 films released during eid. These are routine coverage. Rht bd (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC) Rht bd (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: it is one of the eight films released during last Eid, that's why the film was in conversation, because there are multiple reliable sources about this film, so it is passes WP:GNG and Wikipedia has articles about films that were never distributed and even ones that were never completed, so it is possible to have an article about a film without reviews!... Aqsis Bey (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Aqsis Bey (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

  Could you please mention some specific sources that say more than "it was released during last Eid"? Or even better, add such sources to the article? It does not matter if other articles are bad: we can only consider the article in front of us, and right now, it doesn't support notability. M kuhner (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Bangladeshi films of 2026. No more than passing mentions, so not notable at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Bangladeshi films of 2026: Does not meet WP:NFILM. — Raihanur (talk) 11:57, 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.

Vijayanagara Invasion of Goa (1558)

Vijayanagara Invasion of Goa (1558) (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 the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Siege of Santhome § Merge proposal

 – FaviFake (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Siege of Santhome

Both articles are essentially redundant content forks covering the same military campaign. I propose merging the Vijayanagara Invasion of Goa (1558) into this article. Fróis (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per the OP and because I checked the sources but they don't actually provide that much evidence or insight into this supposed invasion. Most seems to be just conjecture. Certainly nothing to warrant such an article. Wareno (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge Javext (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Goa, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom. LincolnMagnus (talk) 18:02, 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.

Dabugaon Girls High School

Dabugaon Girls High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL owing to the lack of SIGCOV. My BEFORE yielded nothing besides some directories and listicles. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Odisha. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This does not pass WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This page heavily lacks WP:SIGCOV for it to be suitable as a standalone page under WP:GNG. Staticspector (talk) 23:41, 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.

Atiq Ul Ehsan

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

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

Subject fails WP:NPERSON, WP:GNG. Clear promotion. Ighs (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly social media can only be the one reliable source for him, although he also has a YouTube channel... The first *un*reliable source that pops up to me is this. No other significant coverage about him other than he lives in the United Arab Emirates. Also clear conflict of interest and may also fall for G11 speedy deetion. – SimpleObjects-9ei (talk / contribs / CentralAuth) 15:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Zero sourcing for this person that I find, nothing in News, Books, Newspapers. Article now has Github and a primary source/personal website. Very PROMO for a non-notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete - AI violations and non-notable Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: United Arab Emirates, Suspected AI-generated articles, Pakistan, and Businesspeople. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG, no secondary independent sourcing jolielover♥talk 16:15, 7 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.

St Joseph's Convent School, Rourkela

St Joseph's Convent School, Rourkela (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 Rourkela#Education, where it's mentioned with a source. This page fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE yielded some TRIVIAL/ROUTINE coverage but no sources with SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, India, and Odisha. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:18, 7 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.

Namut Dai

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Subject is a schoolteacher (1971–2014)... and its common in Northeast India to get routine non-significant coverage for the profession. Sourcing is also two near-identical Arunachal Times obituaries from the same date. That is one source counted twice, so no WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable, independent sources. Local obituaries are commemorative, weak toward WP:BASIC. WP:ANYBIO #1 not met. The National Award for Teachers (India) has many recipients annually and is not a "well-known and significant" award sufficient alone; the State Teacher Award weighs less. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC (no scholarly impact). No WP:BEFORE search finds sustained secondary coverage. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and Arunachal Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:15, 7 July 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: 2019-11 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 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.

Government High School, Uditnagar, Rourkela

Government High School, Uditnagar, Rourkela (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 in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE yielded some TRIVIAL/ROUTINE coverage but no sources with SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Odisha. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 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.

St Paul's School, Rourkela

St Paul's School, Rourkela (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 Rourkela#Education, where it's mentioned with a source. This page fails in GNG, WP:NSCHOOL as well as WP:NCORP owing to the lack of SIGCOV. My BEFORE yielded some TRIVIAL/ROUTINE reportage but no sources with SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, India, and Odisha. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:08, 7 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.

Hanthakudi Veta (1987)

Hanthakudi Veta (1987) (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 draftifying because article currently contains no content, but the subject may meet WP:GNG. Ighs (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment this should've just been draftified. It has no content beyond the name and some YouTube link. Very uncontroversial. jolielover♥talk 16:19, 7 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.

Table of Seven

Table of Seven (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)

One paragraph about the organisation in one source. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I previously moved to draft and it was restored without substantial improvements. There is a short paragraph about the organisation in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Perhaps it could be merged there if everything is reflected in the source. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I count four paragraphs and one external link. Can we put in a stipulation that an article needs to go through AfC? We do need actual sources here; the information has to come from somewhere. SenshiSun (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I have updated the article to address the concerns regarding sourcing and depth. It is no longer reliant on a single external link; I have integrated three independent academic references that substantiate the subject's baseline verifiability and clear notability.

While the page retains its 'stub' status—as it is designed to be an entry point for further community expansion—the subject is now grounded in reliable, peer-reviewed literature. Because it meets the standard criteria for verifiability and independent coverage, I request that the deletion proposal be withdrawn. Franjo-22121990 (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun: Moreover, I believe it should remain a separate article because two additional articles directly follow it: "Tabula Banalis" and "Royal Court Table, Zagreb." As they represent unified, three-tiered system of appeals within the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. If you prefer integration, I propose merging these three specific articles into one. However, they should remain separate from the main article on the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, as their focus is primarily on legal history. Franjo-22121990 (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia, History, Law, and Organizations. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei: Would you be so kind to delete the previous article you posted "Draft: Table of seven" as it is obsolete. Thank you! Franjo-22121990 (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Franjo-22121990 - The draft appears to have been deleted. However, in general, there is no reason to delete drafts, as they are automatically deleted after six months.

In terms of the sources, while I don't know any Croatian, the automatic translation I used does not appear to have WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

While machine translations are a helpful tool, they often obscure the depth of specialized, historical legal texts. The sources cited here do provide WP:SIGCOV under Wikipedia guidelines for several objective reasons:

The Table of Seven was the supreme court of the realm for nearly a century (1862–1945), surviving across four distinct historical regimes. Per WP:NORG, the supreme court of a historical autonomous state inherently carries notability when documented by peer-reviewed literature. Moreover, per Wikipedia guidelines, reliable sources do not need to be in English to establish notability. The subject is thoroughly grounded in the peer-reviewed legal literature of Čepulo (2006), Sirotković (1991) and Hameršak (2013) Franjo-22121990 (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Franjo-22121990 - You are correct that sources do not need to be in English.

Where does WP:NORG say "the supreme court of a historical autonomous state inherently carries notability when documented by peer-reviewed literature."? I could not find that in the guidelines.

Once again, I ran a translation and I did not find WP:SIGCOV. Please feel free to explain what WP:SIGCOV exists in the sources. Thanks and have a great day! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

You are correct that the phrase "inherent notability for historical supreme courts" is not explicitly written verbatim in the text of WP:NORG.

To address the translation and provide the exact WP:SIGCOV present in the sources, here is what those specific peer-reviewed pages actually cover:

Čepulo (2006), pp. 343–344: Explains the foundational crisis of the judiciary in 1862, details the exact royal decree of April 9, and analyzes how the court was structurally placed under the presidency of the Ban because supreme judicial service was merged with the executive office at the time.

Čepulo (2006), pp. 355–356: Details the specific legislative changes of 1874 regarding the Military Border (Vojna krajina) jurisdiction, and the subsequent 1881 and 1893 parliamentary acts that legally merged and reorganized these departments under the court.

Sirotković (1991), p. 27: Provides an analysis of the court's survival, jurisdictional shifts, and ultimate dissolution during the intense political transitions of the 1940s. Franjo-22121990 (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei: Do you think integrating these three articles into one is better or should it stay this way? Franjo-22121990 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Franjo-22121990 - Which three articles are you referring to? Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"Tabula Banalis", "Royal Court Table, Zagreb" and "Table of Seven". Franjo-22121990 (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Franjo-22121990 - I do think those articles might be best off combined into one. The sources in the others is a bit weak. I will withdraw this WP:AfD, but please work on making the merge and on improved sourcing. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:03, 8 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.

EASA (software)

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

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

Ordinary WP:MILL company. Sources are dead and non WP:RS. MitYehor📘^^talk 12:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, United Kingdom, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. MitYehor📘^^talk 12:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This article does not meet WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing major Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:13, 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.

Iran Air Flight 742

Iran Air Flight 742 (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)

WP:AIRCRASH non-notable wheels-up landing in which nobody was injured and no major damage was sustained by the aircraft (it returned to service after repairs) 10mmsocket (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related AfD discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Iran. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• An easy Keep, minor incident doesn't mean unnotable, the first nomination had explained why its notable and I agree with that (Also after a year, we still have two American newspaper, while the incident was in Iran) Ohok12 (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – There are 4/½ pages of coverage in [Lennie, Soraya (2021). "Dar in Bonbast". Crooked Alleys: Deliverance and Despair in Iran. London: C. Hurst & Co. pp. 1801–1805. ISBN 978-1-78738-609-9.]. It comprises information on the captain, on the flight, the aftermath, and some analysis of the event in the context of the situation in Iran and the country's aviation safety. This fulfills WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep More similar articles about such incidents where 0 fatalities took place can be viewed at Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving belly landings. Koshuri ^(あ!) 16:47, 9 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.

2026 Trump–FIFA red card controversy

2026 Trump–FIFA red card controversy (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 a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Of the actual controversy, there is only two paragraphs dedicated to it, there's a bunch of background material (up to the red card) and then tons of reaction statements on Trump and FIFA's action. Those reactions, outside of the legal attempts to flip the FIFA decision, are excessive and unnecessary. Cut out the rest of the stuff, and you have content that is appropriate for inclusion on the existing List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies page, but not a standalone. Masem (t) 11:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Football-related AfD discussions. Masem (t) 11:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep temporarily Although this article documents the current event, but there have been subsequent impacts, ex. England considered Jarell Quansah red card appeal. Shwangtianyuan MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN 12:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I'm afraid that those reactions is what makes this notable for a standalone article. If there weren't those reactions questioning FIFA's integrity, this would probably be just a minor controversy as all others. Furthermore, the article is way too long to be summarised in List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies, and it contains highly relevant content citing reliable sources that cannot be easily removed per WP:CENSOR. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Reactions that lack any impact of how this gets resolved are basically filler and do not contribute to evaluating event notability and whether this is an enduring event. Yes we can say several countries were upset, but if that's all those countries are doing, we do not need to document them to that level of detail, particularly in the short term. We want actual reactionary steps like Belgium's appeal to be discussed, but none of those other reactions carry any impact here. Masem (t) 12:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The "Suspension of red card" section elaborates it very well why those reactions matter and how this event sets dangerous precedents and questions FIFA's legitimacy (this section can be properly renamed to "Impact"). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  except of course the US lost, any impact of this bo longer will influence the world cup results (no asterisk needed next to a winner), snd saying this might have an impact is WP:CRYSTAL. If it actually does have a long lasting impact on the World Cup or FIFA, then once those are known they can be incorporated into appropriate articles. Exalpanding out this much in the short term (48 hr from event) is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 13:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The article leans far too heavily into Trump's involvement. I removed an entire paragraph sourced to WP:NYPOST... 11WB (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I understand your viewpoint. However, the logistics on how the red card suspension was lifted and the reactions that came with it are unprecedented, and even though the US lost, Russia may be watching closely. This is corruption on an unthinkable level. harukaamaranth 14:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  thd bulk of thd reactions can be summarized in obe sentence that "many countries were critical of FIFA's actions", we absolutely do not need to documentbeach statement of discontent particularly if thats all the statements lead to. Reaction sections like this are equivalent to trivia and pop culture sections they add little value when spelled out to this degree. Masem (t) 15:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  You cannot summarise the analyses made by football authorities (see the "Suspension of red card" section) in one sentence. The reactions go far beyond the plain 'this is unacceptable' or 'this is a just decision', and the article clearly demonstrates what problems those reactions put on the surface. You seem to inaccurately treat the reactions to this event in the same way as for someone’s death, a natural disaster or a military attack. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  on the red card itself: questionable and contested refereeing happens all the time in every sport, we dont create articles to cover that but if it occurred due a game or tourney we'd document like these WC matches, it can be discussed there.

  On the Trump angle and reactions from other teams, it clearly angered many of FIFA reversal, but we dont need to detail to level of what each country actually said. If we were writing this for the first but 20 years later, would we include that level of detail? Of course not. These rea tion sections are not being written to summarize the event for the long term view, but instead to go even deeper than sources actually do on the matter. Hence why its a problem here, just like similar reaction sections on disasters or wars or the like. Masem (t) 16:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Masem: We have entire articles on reactions not mere sections now: Category:International reactions. That is to say things have gotten way out of hand for this stuff. Gotitbro (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  yes, major problem we need to address. I will note that some of those are "responses" (implying more that spoken word but actual actions in response to the event), and those are legit, its just the quoting of every Tom, Dixk and Harry with no actual following to it. Masem (t) 15:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep notable controversy that is reported alot in the media. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep the reactions provide it with sufficient sourcing to merit its own article Jishara (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect: Clear example of WP:TRUMPCRUFT and based entirely on an unconfirmed claim of a phonecall he made to the FIFA boss. This was moved to mainspace despite pushback on the talk page. I agree with the nominator. (I also said this would happen...) 11WB (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect - since the US lost (dang) the game Balogun got to appear in, this will be, at best, a footnote to a footnote in the history of FIFA's (alleged) corruption (and Trump's (alleged) corruption for that matter). The target article can sufficiently handle this content. At this time, no long-term significance to the US-Belgium game or who played in it. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge The article looks impressive but half of it could be excised with no loss to the reader. Meanwhile, this is WP:NOTNEWS which could easily have been mentioned at the target controversies list article, and absolutely should be. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep assuming page is renamed to "Balogun red card controversy," takes focus off "Trump did something bad" and onto the controversy of the red card and its reversal. - RockinJack18 13:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - the fact that the US is openly attacking its allies with their reactions versus that of their own team merits its own article. However, I would suggest renaming the article to "Balogun red card controversy" to focus more on the player, Falogun, because he was the one who received the red card, and Trump and FIFA lobbied to get him back in. (wonder how Egypt and Argentina, who are still in the game, would react...) harukaamaranth 13:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge The controversy can be adequately covered in List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies. The current article gives disproportionate weight to Trump's involvement, while the central issue is the FIFA decision regarding Balogun's suspension and its wider reactions. A standalone article is premature and risks falling under WP:RECENTISM. Axios512 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge There is a main article intended for things like this. A separate overly wordy page is not needed. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, I was worried that the page may consist of WP:TRUMPCRUFT and WP:CRYSTAL, that is why I initially set up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Proposed standalone article, and Talk:2026 Trump–FIFA red card controversy#Requested move 6 July 2026. To keep this AfD on topic, I believe we should be discuss the name at the RM and the encyclopedic/WP:GNG merit here. Furthermore, it may have been a tad too soon for Old revision of 2026 Trump–FIFA red card controversy to be on the mainspace give how the discussion at the WikiProject was still taking place.

That being said, I ultimately think that this whole matter passes WP:GNG. This specific matter is different then the American president getting a medal or playing golf. It's due to his direct influence that ended in changing the outcome of a national sporting event. I can't point to any example in morden history where a leader of a country had been this transparent and it actually working. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

a burst of news coverage (what this event explemifies) does not pass GNG or NEVENT, it is about enduring coverage. There may have been something if the US team moved up further, this incident causing this WC to be tainted by the situation, but ultimately the reversal didnt stop the US from losing. It is very likely not to have much further coverage due to that. It of course shpuld be documented as part of the controversies of this WC but the standalone article is giving this undue attention to what looks like something that will blow over today or tomorrow. Masem (t) 15:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Publicwalrus (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep on GNG grounds. As either an event or a sport article, I would say it passes depth of coverage because the story has been covered by news sources that do not traditionally cover sports e.g. the Financial Times. Given the event's recency it won't currently pass WP:LASTING, although, quoting from that policy, It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  until its proven notable ot can be safely merged yo the controversies page. If for some reason this has enduring coverage after sone time the merge can be undone. The advice is why we shouldn't be rushing to create standalone pages on events, not a defense against deletion. Masem (t) 18:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge - I don't see it having a lasting impact or enduring coverage since the US lost the game and are out of the World Cup. Probably a wait and see, otherwise it's pure WP:TRUMPCRUFT, WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS Publicwalrus (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – I disagree with the assessment that this event will fade into history just because the USA lost. The involvement of the United States government in FIFA's disciplinary proceedings is unprecedented, and will likely be a mark of shame that the USMNT will have to wear for a long time. There's clearly enough coverage by secondary sources, including by sources that are not sports-oriented, due to the clear political implications of the controversy. This isn't just a random tweet or questionable judicial decision from FIFA that happens biweekly, this was a blatant act of cheating by the government of a World Cup host nation. RedBlueGreen93 18:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  It is entirely contemporary coverage, as in the reports were published throughout the initial announcement and match. This will be forgotten about in a few weeks, as everyone will be focused on the overall WC winner. On the claim it is unprecedented, is it really? WP:TRUMPCRUFT exists as an essay because of his feeling the need to insert himself into everything and anything. 11WB (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's not WP:TRUMPCRUFT this is not mainly about the US President, it is about FIFA. It is also already continuing to attract coverage even though the US lost the game and it has turned out to be largely irrelevant from a football perspective (e.g. https://www.ft.com/content/aae94a36-1d3a-435f-bfd9-e059e5789ea0?syn-25a6b1a6=1). Lamoebas (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The article title has his name in it, thus it is TRUMPCRUFT plain and simple. 11WB (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Clearly you don't understand TRUMPCRUFT if you think no article on Wikipedia should exist if Trump's name is included in the title. RedBlueGreen93 02:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are welcome to believe what you want. I responded with my reasoning, let's leave it there. 11WB (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies – Unnecesary fork. Svartner (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge as above - plenty of dramatic coverage in 24 hours, but that's WP:NOTNEWS (for now), and there is no evidence of longstanding notability or coverage. GiantSnowman 19:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep A big precedent. ArionStar (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a random minor controversy that will be forgotten quickly. Yes, the impact on the world cup itself is minor, but this is not what is about, it is about FIFA - according to many commentators - making a decision that no-one expected based on their own rules. UEFA calls it "unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision." This is not WP:TRUMPCRUFT, the controversy is not mainly about him, it's about FIFA, or WP:NOTNEWS as this is not a random news event among many, this is expected to have lasting impact and many reliable sources (e.g. https://www.ft.com/content/aae94a36-1d3a-435f-bfd9-e059e5789ea0?syn-25a6b1a6=1) have reported it under this expectation Lamoebas (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a notable and widely-reported controversy that is too long to merge into List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies. Skitash (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: As fun as it is that they cheated etc, I don't think it's page worthy unless more comes of it.Muur (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep this is almost unprecedented and likely will recieve a bit of lasting coverage, especially in regards to Trump’s corruption. ~2026-38726-29 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, as stated by others Scientelensia (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This is a clear case of a head of state (Trump) disregarding the autonomy of sport with the head of a sport governing body (Infantino) failing to uphold the principles of autonomy, principles which are enshrined in FIFA’s own bylaws and the Olympic charter. As of a result, this ordeal has been widely converted worldwide and it’s not some minor controversy. If it were, I would say to merge. But it’s not a minor controversy and it has major implications in regard to the precedent it may set. --SoCalSportsFan123 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Its an alleged claim. Trump likely did call FIFA but there's no evidence they flipped on Trump's call only. Masem (t) 23:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep now it's France trying to get a yellow card annulled because of this. This is not going to die out anytime soon. Ubenhagen (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE notability guideline reads:

  Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not.

  —Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  In Old revision of 2026 Trump–FIFA red card controversy, @V. S. Video points to WP:EVENTCRIT, as the reason to move to the mainspace. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep / Oppose merge per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SIZESPLIT in connection with WP:TOOBIG. The destination article already covers a massive scope and is at its size limits. The nominated article is also very likely to continue growing due to the existing FIFA–UEFA tensions it touches. Moreover, the ongoing one-year suspension aspect is at play which extends the incident beyond simply a "World Cup controversy." Furthermore, WP:UNDUE is a major factor here. This specific incident clearly stands out from the rest of the general tournament controversies due to the precedent it set. Forcing it into the main list would overwhelm the other entries --✨Demmeow (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  On that note, if this page was to be kept; pages such as Folarin Balogun#2026 World Cup and red card controversy along with List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies#United States vs Bosnia and Herzegovina and List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies#Suspension of Balogun's red card would need a clean up. Issac I Navarro (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The controversy is too enormous enough to put in the List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies leading WP:SIZESPLIT. Future development would also be enourmous as far I could imagine. Besides, it is an inter-field controversy, from both politics and sports. I can't see the reason listing it briefly in the tournament list article. KyleRGiggs (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect This is a controversy at the world Cup. Nothing more. Not deserving of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bte3000 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

So we delete every article about World Cup controversies? That's an absurd proposition. Events and incidents that received significant and lasting coverage are deserving of their own articles, and in this case, leaving it as a section in List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies will bring about WP:SIZERULE problems. RedBlueGreen93 16:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The funny thing is it's not even that much of a World Cup controversy, it's a year-long suspension after all. If merging with anything, the best place would be athlete's own page ✨Demmeow (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I personally don’t think having any of these besides the Hand of God and Gijon is necessary, but this one is unique in how little notability it has. 20:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Bte3000 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I dont see an issue with the controversies that arise during each world cup, the event is known to have many of these each time, not only related to play but to venue, etc. But the standard problem with any article dedicated to controversies is that every single little controversy is being documented, and within the past 10 plus years, in real time as the event happens. We are supposed to summarize from a long term view, and documenting any controversy as it happens without considering long term impacts or how the event will be seen in the future is a major problem. Its why these are so long. Aa I commented below, trimming the current WC controversy articles to ones that has more that a few days of coverage would significantly help reduce size. Thus is part of the unhealthy approach to writing on current events which NOTNEWS absolutely cautions against. Masem (t) 20:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect I agree that this is better suited to the list of controversies than a standalone article, although I can see the argument for why other editors want the page. For example, The New York Times is running the article titled: "Trump’s World Cup Intervention Roils the Soccer World, and Beyond", so the issue does have obvious implications related to politics, corruption, USA standing etc. But I still think the redirect can adequately capture it, rather than needing an entire article. CipherSleuth (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Weak support for redirect – The current section on the controversy in List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies sufficiently covers the event, so I don't believe a standalone article is necessary. I understand concerns related to WP:TOOBIG, but the readable prose for the controversy list is currently ~10,000 words; a split is suggested, but it hasn't hit the >15,000 words "hard" limit yet. We could find a better way to spin-off that list. I'm thinking for example "List of 2026 FIFA World Cup officiating controversies" which could also include the Balogun controversy (I will make this split suggestion if this page redirect happens). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  the same concern about excessive coverage of non actionable reactions here also extends to that list article. It also suffers from the usual problem that "list of controversies" articles have, that editors are adding every possible bit of conflict without considering WEIGHT or DUE with other entries. There are legit, large scale controversies on thus WC like immigration issues with the US, or this red card, but I see a lot of those that just are a list of random grievances. What is going to be the big ones 10 years down the road, not just what can be documented. Trimming is definitely possible. Masem (t) 16:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Masem: I'm leaning towards a merge/rd. But the problem is with the "list" we have around in that title which simply doesn't cut it for the extraordinary happenings at this world cup and also allows for all sorts of cruft to pile up. I was thinking it may refashioned into "Politics and the 2026 Fifa World Cup" or similar, so we can limit the scope; cull it down and easily have this nested there. The cruft as of now doesn't allow a significant place for this and the reason I guess this proposal is receiving opposition. Gotitbro (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  im sure there are a few solutions here that including merging this into something larger, but any effort should start with thoroughly cleaning out the reactions section of documenting every single reaction statement in favor of some better narrative approach. Masem (t) 12:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This is the first time in modern history that something like this has happened, it's not some minor, swept-under-the-rug controversy --Oscar_. (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep temporarily Let us wait. Let us give it some time; it is too early to tell whether it will become largely forgotten.--Sakiv (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep It'd take up a good chunk of List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies making a split necessary either way. Wlaak (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep I think we're seeing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE w/ MEPs proposing a further investigations. GregMcCollum (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Continued coverage does not apply until weeks and months have passed. 11WB (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This topic has received widespread and non-trivial media attention in the days following this incident about how exactly this incident unfolded. Per the general notability guideline, a standalone article should definitely be kept, owing to the multiple sources of significant coverage this topic has received. This incident is probably going to have a long-term impact on the public's perception of FIFA and their president Gianni Infantino. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You're describing a burst of coverage, not enduring. News is going to news and devote excessive time to these type of events, we wait to see if its actually enduring coverage in the weeks or so after the event to determine if appropriate per a standalone. Masem (t) 11:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't have many good options then; as proposed, we could redirect the page to a list but the problem with that is it would take up too much space, far exceeding what is normally acceptable in one row; deleting the article entirely would be awful because this significant decision will have some historical impact on how President Donald Trump, FIFA and its President are perceived. If there were not so much attention on this story, I would support redirection but the way it stands, notability is present. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

a fixable problem is that list, like most other "controversies about x" pages, is that they draw every tiny bit of criticism, the way editors construct them in real time. There is a lot that can be trimmed if focused only on lingering or long term controversies instead if every one off complaint. There's possibly also ways to split off multiple controversies to a separate page as suggested above about one dealing with political issues with the '26 WC. Masem (t) 13:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Masem, I'm not sure the list article was the best choice as a redirect target, as editors are now opting to !keep this article based on page size concerns. This wouldn't have been a valid rebuttal had Folarin Balogun been proposed instead. 11WB (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

as Gotitbro suggested above there are other ways to split the list article in to coherent splits covering multiple, topic connected elements than instead of splitting off individual controversy articles. And I still insist there's plenty of trimming that can be done on the list to avoid a need to split up we got rid of the inconsequential ones. Masem (t) 19:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep has clear independent notability for its own article, WP:GNG met. Skyshiftertalk 17:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'm seeing a lot of arguments here on the lines of this being 'notable for being notable', that is not a reasoned rationale for why so. Receiving reactions is only a small factor or none at all, how does it affect FIFA, the World Cup (if the result is to go by not at all), Trump etc. also go unexplained. This is certainly an aspect of extensive Trump interference into this marquee event but individually I fail to see the need for a separate article, rather than this being folded into larger Trump admin shenanigans at this event which I propose above. Gotitbro (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep a major event with notable impact and coverage. Controversies happen all the time at the world cup. A sitting president intervening in the outcome of the referees decision, however, is a remarkable and unprecedented event worthy of its own page.Bugfingers (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, under my personal opinion and that of others there is little to no reason to separate this topic from the others. Many people say that a high amount of sources makes it needed for a forked article, but this is not true, as this has little to no precedent. For example, the most prominent controversy in the recent history of the World Cup in the world, that being the advancement of South Korea in the 2002 World Cup through rigged matches with Italy and Spain, has no separate article, and is within the controversies section of the article for the World Cup and the article for its knockout stages. If that is the case, then why should this be a separate article? Does it have to do with Trump being involved, and now many people want to make it such a huge deal to break previous precedent? Let's be serious here. MazurTutejszy (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I was indeed going to ask for precedent here in my comment above. Even beyond FIFA do we have any dedicated page for a minor "cheating" scandal amid a championship which had virtually no affect on it. I doubt this is the case. Gotitbro (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Because this controversy is by far the most relevant, not only from this World Cup but any world cup in living memory. The abundance of sources and reactions from officials prove that to be so. Because it was such a high profile incident, the majority of readers will only be interested in learning more about this controversy and not the abundance of other minor ones. Bugfingers (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Speaking of 2002 World Cup, you're wrong, here's Saipan incident for example ✨Demmeow (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not correct. While it was a national incident, prominent in news for the Republic of Ireland and so and so, it ultimately had little influence on the tournament itself. MazurTutejszy (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  It had an influence on the tournament in that Roy Keane, the captain of the ROI, withdrew fom the tournament. They also made a movie about the incident, which influences retrospective analysis of one notable aspect of that year's tournament. Bugfingers (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge – per logic laid out by MazurTutejszy above. Peripteros (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as it shows how corrupt FIFA is — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39238-71 (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I did advise holding off creation of this until after the World Cup. Nevertheless, well written and well sourced about a high profile incident indeed. Fulfills WP:GNG. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:TRUMPCRUFT. None of the Keep votes here are convincing. Some1 (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies is an absurd 19,000 words long. You quite literally can’t merge any content into it.~2026-38468-73 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:LASTING. After the US loss to Belgium, the coverage has pretty much died. Just because something meets WP:GNG does not mean it is deserving of an article. I technically meet WP:GNG, but I certainly do not merit an article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Coverage is still very much alive: https://time.com/article/2026/07/10/world-cup-fifa-infantino-trump-us-balogun-red-card-european-lawmakers/ Bugfingers (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at Google News for the last 24 hrs shows no new news articles that aren't just random opinions or reports of existing wire sources. The story has pretty much died out, indicating this was exactly a burst of news coverage and not enduring. Masem (t) 16:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  The Time article I shared was published 2 days ago and reports on how European Parliament members are actively pursuing an investigation into the incident? I don't think the threshold for continued coverage should be 24 hours. Bugfingers (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  If this gets coverage in 3 months from now, then it will count as continued coverage. Anything within a week or two of said event is not continued coverage, it is still contemporary coverage. 11WB (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This may not have been the case at the time this nomination was made, but the target page has a notice at the top saying This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably and suggesting content be split out. -- Chuq (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge. The encyclopaedic content here could be summarised in a succinct paragraph. We don't need the blow-by-blow followed by every talking head's reaction. That's just news reporting (and WP:NOTNEWS is a policy, which trumps guidelines like notability). Not every fact that can be reliably sourced belongs in an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per ~2026-38468-73: After reading 2026 Trump–FIFA red card controversy and List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies, I don't think we can merge the "red card controversy" into the "World Cup controversies" without breaking the balance of the "World Cup controversies". We may need to split it again. Saimmx (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

yes it can. First, the reaction section in the current article is absolutely unnecessary at this level of detail to start. Second there is a similar level of excessive detail in the list article that can be cut. Masem (t) 13:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Kiril, Isaac, Demmeow, C of E, and 2026-38468-73. The red card suspension is way too significant among a backdrop of other controversies, that adequately explaining this one incident (itself potentially setting precedent and already amidst growing FIFA-UEFA rifts) would risk breaking the balance of that article. Additionally the controversies article itself is already too long and should instead be partitioned into smaller articles focusing on the individual category of controversy, rather than having more info shoved in. Let's face it, what kind of List-class article nets you a 19k word count? The other controversies could be better served with several B- or C-class articles instead of this cacophony. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

the list article absolutely needs trimming. Like almost every other pages devoted to controversies, its drawing every tiny little thing that may seem controversial that happened during the WC, abd is not summarizing these nor writing for the 10 year view. I estimate at least 30% of the prose can be cut down by tighter writing and eliminating trivial events (like the bus incident with the mets). But even if that still makes it long, as the anove suggests as well as Gotitbro above, sublists around specific factors would make sense, and that would still make this as a merge into one of those lists. We should not be creating standalone articles on controversies in the first place, and while I can see why we need a list for each WC, individual events should not given undue excess coverage. Masem (t) 18:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Why not just split the list into articles covering controversies per decade? 11WB (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

the current list article is just over the 2026 WC enrnt. Masem (t) 21:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

...wow. 11WB (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

And again, its far far far too much detail and covering inconsequential aspects. This is why we have WP:CRITS to caution against such excessive coverage. Masem (t) 23:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That article is ridiculous, frankly. I haven't bothered reading it, but I can imagine much of it is UNDUE. I said this above, but Folarin Balogun would have been a much stronger target, and would invalidate the page size !keep arguments. 11WB (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think merging this article to Folarin Balogun satisfies WP:DUE either. Merging this incident to his article implies that he bears primary responsibility for the controversy involved, when the suspension of his red card punishment was the result of Trump calling Infantino to suspend it. The incident was one of the United States government unduly influencing FIFA and leading to the latter creating a precedent, and not Balogun or even the US soccer team requesting for it. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

We're talking about trimming an article down from nineteen thousand words. Even if you excise all the minor details I have severe doubts if it could even be cut down to a prose size of 8-10k. With how prominent Balogun's red card suspension is, to the point of having multiple teams attempting to get FIFA into annulling their teams' punishments, trying to reduce the incident into "a succinct paragraph" on the list article would inevitably cause a lot of context to be lost, and would not be WP:DUE for the list or this controversy; trying to merge this controversy into the article and going into detail there would also be undue as it would majorly imbalance coverage of controversies in the 2026 World Cup. With how extensive the coverage is on this topic vis-à-vis other controversies, having a dedicated article for this incident is the least we can do. There is no alternative. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

But again, how much actual impact is this having from a ten-year point of view? Right now, it seems this is not going to have any real effect at all, and likely will be more notable from the political side reflecting on Trump and his relation with FIFA officials than the actual World Cup. That absolutely could change if a significant event actually occurs, but I don't see that happening the way things are going now.

The problem here is how editors are creating these articles in the first place, stuffing tons of details into the event article based on just a 24-hr news cycle, rather than waiting even at least a week to see what type of level of coverage to give it. This article, and the overall list of '26 WC controversies, are prime examples of how not to write about current events per NOT#NEWS and NEVENT. If these were developed with those in mind, waiting to see what actually persisted as controversies and writing not from a day-to-day/proseline style but a summary view, you absolutely can make those cuts, both to this article and the list. Keep in mind, we strong discourage lists of controversies-type articles; controversies should be worked into the prose of the main topic rather than called out, which is another way to reduce that size. That should have been the first thing attempted before even spinning out any controversy to its own article. Masem (t) 11:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Frank Lampard got a ghost goal in the 2010 knockout match against Germany. It was this that led to VAR being implemented. Where's the dedicated article? Answer: doesn't have one. Just like this doesn't need its own article. 11WB (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If there were an article dedicated to all the times the president of a host nation intervened with a FIFA decision at the World Cup, then it would be precedented and the Trump controversy would belong there. Unlike the ghost goals article, no such article or precedent exists. Bugfingers (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG and keep improving. No need to overthink. Article has enough coverage for a standalone article (which also happens to have 42k+ pageviews in the last 30 days, so clearly of interest as well). An extraordinary event that is likely to have ongoing discussion and analysis and consequences in future, so relevance will be WP:SUSTAINED. Many editors have rightly pointed out ways to improve the article (e.g. by cutting some excessive detail and cruft), but this can happen during the normal course of editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:LASTING. Briefly summarize what happened and provide one sentence that covers the sentiment of the reactions, which is, globally, everybody was very upset. This is not an enduring event that deserves more than a footnote or mention in the target list article. This is not a unique or notable example of corruption, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  It is an enduring event: https://www.dw.com/en/world-cup-balogun-red-and-expansion-keep-fifa-in-spotlight/a-77933944 Bugfingers (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is these (below) showing coverage from today:

  • https://www.foxnews.com/sports/folarin-balogun-admits-red-card-reversal-affected-usa-world-cup-teammates-lot-outside-noise
  • https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49358886/united-states-folarin-balogun-world-cup-ban-overturn-affected-teammates
  • https://www.the-independent.com/bulletin/sport/balogun-trump-2026-world-cup-infantino-b3014751.html
  • https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7444835/2026/07/14/folarin-balogun-ban-overturn-trump-usmnt/

  Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  these are all the same "source", from an interview with CBS. This is the nature of news media trying to fill any void with new factoids. Not saying this isnt important (as a central element his reaction is actually apropos), but just to be careful of claims if what ingoing coverage. Masem (t) 18:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Masem, this is a small factoid that is being endlessly echoed by multiples of media outlets based on a single source. This does not seem to contradict failing WP:LASTING and does demonstrate the NOTNEWS aspect of Wikipedia.---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  "The fallout from Folarin Balogun's red card reversal continues as reports suggest the chairman of FIFA’s disciplinary committee made the decision unilaterally." taken from the DW article published yesterday. A national broadcaster literally saying it is an ongoing issue. Bugfingers (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge this is a textbook WP:NOTNEWS issue, and it's way too early for any source of LASTING claim to the contrary. That List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies is similarly overstuffed by breathless recitation of in-the-moment news coverage does not mean that this article should exist independent of the myriad other news cycle controversies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Balogun red card controversy. The world does not revolve aroound Trump. Just because he is invovled doesn't mean his name has to be in the article title. You simply cannot separate the initial highly controversial red card call from this issue. BlueRockThrush (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@BlueRockThrush, please keep this matter about the AfD, and the renaming on the article's talk in the RM section. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to 2026 FIFA red card controversy. This may not be that notable in the context of Trump and his presidency, but this certainly satisfies WP:GNG as far as FIFA's contemporary history is concerned. I do not wish to formally invoke WP:CRYSTAL but for purposes of this discussion only, I believe this will have significant repercussions to FIFA as an organization moving forward. Lastly, note that this topic also touches on WP:SPORTSEVENT. Hey Lumpia (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep Cheromaniii (talk) 22:20, 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.

Energy storage

Energy storage (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 Grid energy storage because of the wide overlap in the content. While "energy storage" could be a more general concept, the current article covers the same topics as Grid energy storage abandeali (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Physics, and Technology. abandeali (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. If anything the merge would be the other way as "Grid energy storage" is a subset of "Energy storage". Both articles are quite long and detailed, so can stand as they are; this is not the common case of merging a short article into a long one. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with some duplication. A few strategic {{Main}} and {{See Also}} can help connect the two with, perhaps, a little editing.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  N.B., parts of "Energy storage" have no connection to the grid, e.g. Biological. Biofuels. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The reason I proposed the unusual direction was based on the current state of the article. Energy Storage at the moment heavily emphasizes the grid use case so I thought it was appropriate to merge in that direction, particularly since I also thought Grid energy storage was in a better state.

  But I think based on the feedback here, I probably shouldn't have focused on the current state and instead looked at what the article could be in the ideal state. abandeali (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Batteries are not grids. Need 2 articles. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the main topic, with Home energy storage being another subtopic. Merging in that direction makes no sense. Reywas92^Talk 13:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Energy storage is a broad concept, including applications other than for the power grid. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. As other editors have noted, grid energy storage is a type of energy storage. Other sorts of energy storage which wouldn't fit in the GES article would include batteries, mechanical energy storage, home energy storage, energy storage in the form of fuel in a car, among many others. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep (oppose merger) - this is linked with over 250 articles, has been around for 25 years (almost since the inception of Wikipedia), and has thousands of bytes and dozens of reliable sources showing significant coverage, all separate from grids. It is an essential hub of energy law. It's also been attacked by certain conspiracy theorists as something that doesn't exist: it's a reason why wind power has been attacked as useless. To merge this with anything else would be surrendering to the whack jobs. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 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.

Precision cut lung slices

Precision cut lung slices (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)

"ChatGPT, could you write me a long, meandering Wikipedia article about a niche scientific methodology?" "Absolutely! What a great suggestion!" Utter LLM garbage. There are a couple of reliable, secondary sources in the long list of references, but a topic this specific does not deserve this much space. At the very least this article should be stubified. But I would prefer delete as per WP:NOLLM. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and warn. or block User. The user has been blocked before. Time sink is the phrase. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The original author was blocked and then unblocked. They do not seem to have caused any new trouble since the unblock so this might be unnecessary. DanielRigal (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think this so called article is new trouble. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, because this isn't a new article. M66JX hasn't touched this article since October 2023. Their unblock was in December 2024. Their editing before the block, which this article reflects, was very bad but they were given a second chance. Based on an (admittedly cursory) look at their edits, I don't think that they have done anything bad since then. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Either Delete or Stubbify. Earwig's copyvio detector is beeping at 65.8% suggesting that this is too close to somebody else's material whether via AI or not. There may be a legitimate topic here, hence the possibility to reduce it to a stub. That said, it is a virtual orphan. The only incoming links from other articles are, possibly spurious, "See also" entries. That might well tip it towards a Delete. There would be nothing to stop anybody else having a go at writing a proper article later if they think Reliable Sources justify it. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Administering treatments in PCLS can be challenging because the entire slice is bathed in the compound or stimulant of interest. This poses difficulties in translating findings to inhaled or systemic applications in vivo, making dosing and translation [49: complex.https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/9/12/2479.short]

Administering treatments in PCLS can be challenging because the entire slice is bathed in the compound or stimulant of interest. This poses difficulties in translating findings to inhaled or systemic applications in vivo, making dosing and translation complex. [Ewart, L.; Dehne, E. M.; Fabre, K.; Gibbs, S.; Hickman, J.; Hornberg, E.; Ingelman-Sundberg, M.; Jang, K. J.; Jones, D. R.; Lauschke, V. M.; Marx, U.; Mettetal, J. T.; Pointon, A.; Williams, D.; Zimmermann, W. H.; Newham, P. (2018). "Application of Microphysiological Systems to Enhance Safety Assessment in Drug Discovery". Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 58: 65–82. doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052722. PMID 29029591.]

If this malformed paragraph with a completely different citation weren't a giveaway, the edit history has multiple thousand-character edits in the same minute on October 12, 2023. Delete. SenshiSun (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I didn't notice those timestamps. That was definitely either being copied in from somewhere else or generated on the fly. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. This user is not writing content. That is obvious. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified with a modified version of the AI1 template because the offending edits were from 2023, predating current policy. Here's the link. SenshiSun (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and please do warn the editor who created this article.

Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: The page creator says they were copying from a Google doc, not from an LLM. I've asked about who wrote the document. SenshiSun (talk) 13:41, 9 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.

Trajectories (magazine)

Trajectories (magazine) (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)

Seems like a fanzine that does not meet WP:GNG. (See also ongoing related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Shannon (American writer)). Note that in my BEFORE I contact an editor from The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction who has written a number of SFE entries on fanzines, and they told me this doesn't look important enough for them to have an entry, and also observed that even the more inclusive fan wiki on that topic lists only a different magazine under that name: https://fancyclopedia.org/wiki/Trajectories PS. Previous AfD on this from 2016 had no participation and in today's standards would be equivalent to an uncontested PROD anyway, so this article is on its second life anyway... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, News media, and Texas. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete yesterday's news. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I would suspect most of this company's info is offline but couldn't find anything though Google Books, Newspapers.com, etc. Until proven otherwise this org fails our notability threshold. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 22:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Fancyclopedia now has an article about this at https://fancyclopedia.org/wiki/Trajectories_(Austin) . I don't think it's enough but it's better than nothing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Interesting (and I'm glad there's a fancyclopedia article now so the information isn't nowhere), but no good secondary sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's listed in some writer directories while it was published and it's reviewed very briefly in Factsheet 5 no 47. Otherwise, nada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA I am surprised fancyclopedia didn't copy all the information despite noting, amusingly, we are about to delete our content :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

They can always put an archive.org link, I guess...? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:14, 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.

Payrav Sulaymānī

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

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

Not finding any WP:SIGCOV and appears to fail WP:NBIO. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Tajikistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I have been spotting repeat attempts to duplicate this article at Payrav Sulaymoni, this article's former location. I was going to move this page there, but noticed this AfD and would like to request @Zosya95 to comment here as well. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and WP:SALT. One source, disjointed writing, and repeatedly created. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independent coverage it's currently just a stub that doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Staticspector (talk) 16:41, 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.

Euphoria360 Media

Euphoria360 Media (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)

Refs are press-releases and PR. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 09:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – as per nomination. Freddieh9 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect: to Femi Adebayo who is the founder. In am actual sense per the article, the company has produced three notable films.SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Femi Adebayo. I don't think the article is promotional but is a case of TOOSOON. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect While the company may not currently meet the standards for a standalone article under WP:NCORP, the information is still important and it should be moved to its own section within Femi Adebayo to preserve the content. Staticspector (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no merge-able content here. scope_creep^Talk 18:20, 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.

Panasonic Lumix S1IIE

Panasonic Lumix S1IIE (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)

Panasonic Lumix S1RII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography § Panasonic Lumix DC-S1M2 Merging propose

 – FaviFake (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Panasonic Lumix DC-S1M2 Merging propose

I propose consolidating: Panasonic Lumix S1RII and Panasonic Lumix S1IIE into Panasonic Lumix DC-S1M2 article. Aside from the sensors, there are no major differences among these three models, and Panasonic officially categorizes them all under the DC-S1M2 group. And, incorrect article names. What do you all think? 昼落ち(Hiru-ochi)_talk 13:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Products, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 7 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.

Fetishnale Berlin

Fetishnale Berlin (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)

Small Berlin arts festival with no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Primary citations are niche lifestyle blogs, a participating artist's own website, and event listings. Does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON applies.

Note: article was created by a user blocked for promotional edits. BOUNCER (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, LGBTQ+ studies, and Germany. BOUNCER (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related AfD discussions. jolielover♥talk 09:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – as per nomination. Freddieh9 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

* Delete Attended by what? 14 people? Promo piece, needs to go away. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:43, 7 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.

Abhimanyu Dixit

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

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

Fails GNG and FILMMAKER. Sources are mostly about the movies in which he was involved rather than the person himself. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nepal. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

* Delete No GNG. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete : No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMMAKER. Last of The Time (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - producers of short films are rarely notable, being run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 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.

384 (number)

384 (number) (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 300 (number) because 384 only has one notable property, namely that it is the order of the hyperoctahedral group. A number needs three notable properties to merit an article under wikipedia project numbers guidelines. Riverskip (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

300 (number) seems misnamed because it is not just about the number 300. Perhaps 300-399 would be more accurate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but out of the scope of this discussion. Riverskip (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The general structure for articles 300 (number) – 1000 (number), is to include a list of all integers, as put out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Structure. Freddieh9 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep 384 is pretty important. It's a round number in binary, which in turn leads to its importance in computing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC).
  

  Do you have any reliable sources? The section on computing is ccurrently completely uncited. If it is a notable property that merits an article, there should be plenty of reliable sources. Sources should not just be lists of product names that include 384, many products have numbers in their names that do not have any relation to the mathematical object. A reliable source would need to explain the relevance of 384 to binary and thus why it is signifigant in computing. If there are not reliable sources that support this, it is likely not notable. Riverskip (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I added one source to the section but I don't think one source is enough to make it notable. Budew1234 (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – as by WP:NNUM, it is included in "What's Special About This Number?" and Those Fascinating Numbers. I have also added that it is a Granville number, so we should definitely have 3 interesting enough properties now. Freddieh9 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT. While the topic itself may or may not be notable, it would serve our readers better if we cover this number on the target page instead of spreading it across two pages, per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT TPI81AF (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good rescue. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 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.

Sarita Kaushik

Sarita Kaushik (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 significant coverage. Most of the available good citations are about a single event where she gets appointed as the Deputy Executive Editor ABP Majh. All others are either primary sources or something where subject is merely mentioned. Fails GNG Thilsebatti (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, News media, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete No GNG. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Lacks significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. Lot of the refs cite Wikipedia, and the ones that do not are not third-party sources and are just routine profile pages. No significant coverage. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 22:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Coverage comes mostly from primary sources. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:39, 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.

2026 Tomblaine Pilatus PC-6 Porter crash

2026 Tomblaine Pilatus PC-6 Porter crash (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 routine nomination for this topic area. Aviation accidents are often created before their notability is established. Despite the unfortunate number of fatalities, this doesn't have the SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article at this time. Just under half of the current references cite the Aviation Safety Network, which does not contribute to notability being a database. I support a merge to the relevant airport article. 11WB (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or Draft: User always nominates every article after being created, ridiculous. Notability is still being established despite it being the early stages, nominating an article for deletion right away is nonsense. We just had a previous incident like this 2026 Butler PAC P-750 crash and notability has been well established, give it time for this one. Megabyte21 (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Sock strike. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Aviation, and France. 11WB (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Way to early for a deletion nomination. I would say keep as it nearly hit houses and a shopping centre and is the deadliest skydiving plane crash in French history. That's pretty notable. There was also more than 10 fatalities, and there is an article about a similar crash earlier this year (mentioned above). Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that's distinct from the colloquial definition of the word. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The database page cited French newspapers for some things. We can check what those sources say. Looks like a major accident. SenshiSun (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Nancy-Essey Airport#Accidents and incidents. The article was clearly created too soon, and while the nomination was probably also too soon, precedent from similar light aircraft accidents tells us that there is minimal likelihood of coverage beyond the initial news cycle or lasting effects. As to the above keep rationale that it nearly had more serious consequences, notability depends only on what actually happened (we could still mention what might have happened, but only if it is discussed and analysed in reliable secondary sources). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Both of those "too soon" pages are essays. It is an ongoing problem however. Jumping to create aviation articles for every minor incident or accident is pretty ridiculous. If editors didn't create them and stuck to the major accidents only, there wouldn't be so many of these types of nomination. I did wait a day to nominate this I'll add. I have no issues with a merge, I'll add my support for that to the opening statement. 11WB (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. From what I've heard, This disaster marks as France's deadliest skydiving-related aviation accidents in roughly 30 years ago. And narrowly missed homes or buildings, resulting in no casualties on the ground. The crash was immediately reported by major global news agencies, including Reuters, BBC News, and Le Monde. The accident caused immediate public reactions and official sympathys from France's top leaderships. This also happened in the United States where a skydiving PAC P-750 Crashed, killing all 12 lives. By all this, this haves a warrant in its own standalone article and absolutely provides WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT. Jahndah (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Almost all aviation accidents are newsworthy and result in routine reporting in the immediate aftermath of the event. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper and accidents, however tragic, are not inherently notable. To meet our event notability criteria, an event must be the subject of in-depth coverage and analysis and/or have lasting effects. The number of fatalities, or the fact that an accident breaks an unfortunate record, does not have a direct impact on notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as per Jahndah, a rare event. I think WS:NOTNEWS is past its use by date, our routine coverage of breaking news stories is exceptional. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  We may be capable of covering breaking news stories, but that doesn't mean we should cover them. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to cover encyclopedic topics that will actually be of interest to readers ten or twenty years from now. WP:NOTNEWS is policy; this isn't the venue for taking issue with it. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have a feeling there will be many of these WP:ATA arguments. This one being WP:INTERESTING. I'm open to withdrawing this (permitted as there are no deletion arguments), and renominating at a later date if no further coverage is published. 11WB (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep for now. As the article might have been created too soon; we shouldn’t WP:Don't rush to delete articles. Event is unique and has extensive (international) coverage. ~2026-38195-62 (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Nancy-Essey Airport per Rosbif73. News coverage does not create notability. Also note that WP:RAPID encourages merging during "too soon" nominations, so it's my understanding that a good faith citing of WP:RAPID means openness to merging (or draftifying, userification, etc). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - seems to already be sufficient discussion to make it thru. Has a lot of coverage both in and outside France, and analysis articles are already coming out. Jishara (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide them here? These would be good, so long as they are from reliable outlets. 11WB (talk) 18:53, 7 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.

Pacific Coast Inter-Scholastic Sailing Association

Pacific Coast Inter-Scholastic Sailing Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG – I'm unable to find any secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the airline association, or any WP:SIRS-passing sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, United States of America, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Utah. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Couldn't find any significant secondary coverage on Google Books or Google Scholar. Delete. Wanwa (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Not an airline, though! M kuhner (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for catching that. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. There only seems to be primary sources for this subject. Aneirinn (talk) 19:21, 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.

Stage 4

Stage 4 (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)

Page is made entirely of partial-title matches, which is advised against for disambiguation pages. Delete to allow Wikipedia's search function to work instead. Steel1943 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: mainly because "Stage 4" is such a common term in distressing real-life conversations and we need to link it to Cancer staging, but there are so many other usages too. Even if it needs a little WP:IAR, this dab page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 7 July 2026
• Keep. This is a very plausible search term and the search results are significantly inferior to the dab page in terms of enabling readers to find the topic they are looking for, especially if they don't know the specific way we've titled our article. I'm not sure that the Biathlon and Call of Duty entries belong on the dab, but even if they don't that doesn't require deletion of a dab page when there are unambiguously desirable uses on there. We must not let slavish following of internal guidelines take precedence over what is best for the reader. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - the search function is not that effective, and this is a search term needing a disambiguation. Jishara (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep Most of these are likely to be called just stage 4. I removed just one that wasn't. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I removed 2: Key Stage 4 and Dual-Stage 4-Grid. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 7 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.

Petticoating

Petticoating (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 Sissy because there is a there is also a lot of overlap between the actions and topics already. There is also a lack of proper cites meaning there are already issues with the page itself. Itsirlpidge (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Fashion, and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. Although I see a case for the standalone article if it was better written and sourced as it stands, it's not suitable for its own article. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment. I would have said keep but seeing that the article has been created for a long time and no tangible improvement, I agree with merging. Obinna Tony (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge in the current state. If there are substantial improvements before this is closed, please ping me. Khalitate (talk) 05:15, 7 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.

Meiram – The Fireline

Meiram – The Fireline (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)

Film does not meet notability criteria. Astra Travasso (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Film. Astra Travasso (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This does not pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and move to draft SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NFILM. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:36, 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.

Hell Paso

Hell Paso (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)

Redirect to At the Drive-In discography contested by @King0l23: with an edit summary of Put it to a vote. You don't get the final say. My polite explanation to them of the ways in which their words and actions were good-faith but misguided went completely ignored.

The first two sources are passing mentions that confirm nothing other than that the EP exists. The third and fourth are fansites, and even then they only contribute a listicle and a set list, respectively. The fifth is a booking agency's website, which again confirms only that the EP exists. Sources I removed from the article already include Sputnik Music (unreliable per WP:SPUTNIK) and this archived link to the website of what appears to have been a fan-made awards show hosted on YouTube.

I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of this EP: no reviews, retrospectives, or anything of the sort. World Radio History and GBooks gave only passing mentions or false positives, and newspapers.com was completely useless. The only content I found was unreliable fansites, Discogs, or vendors. A few passing mentions of an early independent release by a notable band do not make that work automatically notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable bands can release non-notable works. Suggest deletion or reinstatement of redirection to At the Drive-In discography. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Texas. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, at least it will get a ceremonious send-off now. King0l23 (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. I am not finding SIGCOV here. Khalitate (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to At the Drive-In discography - I am familiar with this EP and with the band, and can say that the EP does get a lot of fan discussion, but coverage in reliable sources that can support an encyclopedic article is simply too thin. The band was unknown at the time of its release, and when they became successful later it was frequently mentioned retroactively as their debut item, but with no analysis of its merits in their own right. The band's article already covers what we know about the recording and what the band was doing around that time. The rest is just unsupportable fan trivia. Redirecting to the band's discography is standard WP procedure for this kind of situation, and harmless too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per exhaustive evidence showing a lack of SIGCOV. @TenPoundHammer: FYI, WP:SPUTNIK and Sputnikmusic are not the same. In certain situations, SM is admissible, as it does in fact have an editorial team with oversight and is usable to determine SIGCOV, but they also allow user reviews which must be avoided. Dependent on the article's available sourcing, on other articles it might be undue weight. In this article's case, it was user-contributed anyway, but I thought I'd note the difference. mftp dan ^oops 21:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to At the Drive-In discography#Extended plays per nomination. I could find to WP:SIGCOV either. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per all comments above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:03, 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.

St. Basil the Great, Kimberton

St. Basil the Great, Kimberton (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)

Clear instance of WP:ROTM. Nothing particularly notable about this parish/church that meets the criteria. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Pennsylvania. AaronNealLucas (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - there is nothing especially historic about the building, its musical performances, its school, or anything else. The sources are also lacking. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't make WP:NBUILDING. Khalitate (talk) 06:02, 7 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.

The Social Democrats

The Social Democrats (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 sources supporting the existence of this microscopic party are completely nonexistent; it is clearly not an encyclopedic party. The little information regarding its ephemeral existence is already included in Italian Democratic Socialist Party (2004)#2008 general election and failed recomposition. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Every party should have a Wikipedia article. --Checco (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, so if tomorrow one of my friends and I create a party and promote it on a couple of local blogs, it also deserves an article on Wikipedia, that seems like an impeccable reasoning to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Space (Italian political party). --~2026-38007-39 (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

What does Public Space have to do with this party, which isn't backed by a single source?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, as per the above two requests.--Autospark (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The article, as it is currently written, is inscrutable. Notability is not inherent per Wikipedia:NINHERENT. This does not show this party is notable enough for its own article. It is not clear if this party ever held a seat or had any candidates in an election. If this is an accurate representation of the information available in Italian, the party only lasted for a few months. "A recomposition of the two groups may still be possible, but it has been made difficult also by the fact that D'Andria is keen on an alliance with the centre-right (three MPs of The People of Freedom – Massimo Baldini, Giancarlo Lehner and Paolo Russo – are quite close to the new PSDI), while Magistro has aligned his iSD with the centre-left." appears to be opinion and is written in present tense, while the rest is in past tense.

• I would be willing to change my vote if edits were made to clarify these questions. Please ping me if that occurs. SenshiSun (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa, would you mind explaining the sources in more depth? @Checco restored two archived sources and added a third, bringing the total to 8. When you nominated the article, there were 5. I have no idea if they're good quality, as I can't speak Italian, but they do seem to exist. SenshiSun (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun The sources regarding this party are the first three, as they concern the party's old website. Sources 4–6 concern the PSDI, while sources 7–8 concern Social Democracy, which is a completely different party. In practice, there are no third-party sources about this party. I would add that the party has never had representatives, not even at a local level, nor has it ever participated in elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, I continue to strongly suspect that behind Autospark's interventions there is a case of WP:STEALTH, as this user does not edit for months and then intervenes not in relevant discussions, but in discussions or deletion procedures of unknown Italian parties like this one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Or they could just browse relevant wiki projects.

Thank you for clarifying the origins of the sources. I do see they all have the same URL. A political party's website is not a reliable source. It does not seem notable at all. SenshiSun (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Italian Democratic Socialist Party (2004)#2008 general election and failed recomposition. Subject fails WP:LASTING and notability is not WP:INHERENT. मल्ल (talk) 18:42, 7 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.

Clayton Long Trophy

Clayton Long Trophy (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)

There doesn't appear to be sufficient in-depth coverage of this seemingly minor in-house award to justify a standalone article, which is LLM-generated anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, Business, United States of America, Colorado, and Montana. JTtheOG (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There's been two cleanup passes here: and I don't see anything that I recognized as AI prose here now. Do you still see any issues? Scarpy (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. However, heavy evidence of LLM use remains. JTtheOG (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious if you could speak more to this? - Scarpy (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Particuarly, if you could have a look here? . - Scarpy (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, this new version looks much more human-written. Nice work. JTtheOG (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to remove the ai generated banner. Is that the only concern, or do you have further thoughts on WP:GNG as it applies here? Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

No, they are separate concerns. JTtheOG (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we discuss the notability please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)