Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Events. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Events

Honor America Days


Honor America Days (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 United States federal observances#Other because the article currently has one primary source. I found minimal secondary mentions, but I am not convinced that it rises to the level of WP:GNG. If more substantial sources are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 12:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, the sourcing affirms that this is an official United States observance, passed by Congress and signed by U.S. president Bill Clinton. Almost every official U.S. national observances has a stand-alone article, nothing broken or unusual here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect Congress passes a lot of stuff, that doesn't mean they need articles. Rather baffling comparison to other observances when (a) that's not even true, lots of items on that page don't have their own articles and (b) other things with articles actually have substance and significant souces! Why are all of your votes vibes-based or association-based and irrelevant to the GNG? I see local news that Rome, New York, actually has a parade called Honor America Days, but they've been doing that since before this was established; maybe present content and evidence that a standalone page would be justified based on those or others, not mere status of what it is. I can't find any coverage about the legislation when it passed. Reywas92Talk 14:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: I concede that Randy Kryn is at least somewhat correct, and that we do host multiple pages for entirely imaginary statutory observences (not to say the statutory basis is imaginary, nor that the observence is undeserving, just that any practical effect is imaginary; to name a few we have Loyalty Day, National Aviation Day, and White Cane Safety Day). However, I stand to suggest that this may not be a matter of community consensus and may just be defacto policy. I rise to challenge this paradigm: We've already established that every act of a government doesn't automatically reach notability, (Not every law or act or bill has a Wikipedia Page, nor does every EO, proclamation, Joint Resolution, etc.), therefore, I posit that the standard should be this for ceremonial events: 1) They should have to meet the SIGCOV requirements in full, 2) There should be evidence of routine coverage on a yearly basis, and 3) The average citizen from the country in question should know what the heck the supposed observation is. No matter what, this page fails all of that, and WP:SIGCOV and thereby WP:GNG. Foxtrot620 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

GITEX AI India


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

The article is about a future event. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. Most of the sources are announcements based on information provided by organizers. The page is premature too, a lot of elaboration on planned activities and expected features are mentioned. Wikipicked (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Death of Jamey Carney


Death of Jamey Carney (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:NOTNEWS title which aggregates news coverage on recent event. While the crime itself is just as shocking as other recent femicides in Ireland, and the WP:GEOSCOPE broader (occurred in Ireland, victim from US, perpetrator fled to Jordan), the expectations of WP:NCRIME (WP:LASTING impact on society/legislation, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or use as a case study, etc) are not yet demonstrated. Would propose WP:DRAFTifying. But I already draftified. And was moved back to main namespace (with mostly only the TSI, FV, OR and RSP issues addressed). Still reads as WP:NOTNEWS coverage. Guliolopez (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete or Draftify - with reference to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME, at best premature. Maybe if some innovative process results, there will be better grounds for an article. SeoR (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete (it can't be draftified again) per nom, with no prejudice against recreation if the case does indeed evolve to more than WP:NOTNEWS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

1876 Bowen tornado


1876 Bowen tornado (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 event from 150 years ago with sources only from the days following the event. I was not able to find any later coverage. Appears to fail WP:NSUSTAINED. If more sources are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    I say we keep it, even though the information may be a bit outdated but the tornado is still notable enough ~2026-42180-35 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect back to Bowen, Queensland#History – Besides the contemporary coverage from 1876, no retrospective secondary source provides significant/in-depth coverage of the tornado, with a lack of lasting effects. Back when I tried to fix this article, I attempted to search for sources on this tornado. It was surprisingly difficult to find any as I only found passing mentions (like this and this for example). There's no indication that this was not a notable tornado. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • merge to List of Australia tornadoes. This is most notable for its intensity, so it would make sense being listed among all Australian tornadoes. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Australian tornadoes. When I tried creating this article, there was a reason why when it was taken down, I didn't try to revive it again. It is still the strongest Australian tornado, so it is historically significant, but the lack of sources means it doesn't really need an article. It should link to the Australian tornadoes list for now, but could perhaps have a paragraph in Bowen, Queensland#History. CycloneTheta talk 08:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hurricane Brenda (1973)


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

I also propose to merge

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

Strong Opposition to Merging: None of these pages are suitable for merger. They were each significant storms, and all are Good Article rated. They are also too long to merge without loosing major details. Your proposed omnibus article is clunky, and to include all of the information it should would need significant expansion, which would put it in violation of WP:Size. The way it is now is better for these, and other reasons. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
How are any of these significant storms? None of them have any lasting coverage. As shown in the theoretical season article, there isn't too much detail to merge. Each of the sub-articles have a lot of preparations (which are routine), and use a lot of words to not say a lot. Even though they are good articles, that doesn't mean they can't be merged. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge I see what the nominator means to a point, but each of the individual pages meets the coverage standard to stand alone. The detail in the pages isn't too intricate or too passing and interested people would be served well by both the omnibus as it exists and the extra detail in the separate pages. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
@Dizzycheekchewer: sorry what do you mean by "the omnibus"? Do you mean the season article? The 1973 Atlantic hurricane season is currently only 4,043 words. So the extra detail constitutes more of a content fork. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I mean the season article. I mean that right now, the detail in the articles isn't too much or too little and a merge would, theoretically either get rid of detail that adds value and/or overburden the season article. The current divide works best, imo. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
@Dizzycheekchewer: but if you see the draft for what it would look like, such a merger would not overburden the season article, it's still a reasonable size. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I think that version loses some of the detail from e.g. the Brenda article that is a) useful and b) not overdone in that specific context. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry to keep pushing, but what information in the Brenda article is useful that did not appear in the theoretical merged article? One of the only things I excluded was Brenda's apparent high winds and rainfall along the northern Yucatan, which is not backed up by the available sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Gilda | Neutral Brenda, Christine, and Delia. Except for Christine, all systems are below my personal threshold but, except for Gilda, not by a terrible amount especially for an event that happened over half a century ago. Gilda should have done something to Cuba but between the storm happening over half a century ago in another country with oppressive media restrictions and speaking another language, I do not know to get that information. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Even Spanish sources merely mention Gilda as having affected Cuba, but without any detail. I checked the first few pages of Google searches for [Tormenta Tropical Gilda 1973 Cuba] and didn't have any luck. Also for reference, Brenda and Delia are among [shortest good articles]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merging any, per Foxtrot620 and Dizzycheekchewer. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
@Asdfjrjjj: would you mind expanding your rationale? As I said, there isn't much content to merge in all of these articles, so please check out what a proposed merger would look like. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
To editor Hurricanehink: Fs! they all seem notable to me, and so warrant their own, detailed articles. Merged article looks pretty good!, but is less detailed than individual articles (naturally). Would prefer if merged article only has an overview of each system, w/ a link to main article for further details, and generally don't think we've gotta worry so much abt articles' short size (as long as they're not stubs, w/c these don't seem to be to me :) - rn, would really only change !vote if any failed WP:GNG or WP:SNG, but none seem to! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

1976 Cuban constitutional referendum


1976 Cuban constitutional referendum (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 Constitution of Cuba because, though it seems strange to me (and this may be slanted considering the fact that I am only looking for English sources), all WP:RSes I can find about this referendum only mention it very briefly and in passing, mostly in relation to the more recent constitution referendum. This would mean that it plainly does not meet WP:SIGCOV. It's strange to me to say this, but I can't find much significant coverage. Searching from Spanish-speaking Wikipedians would be useful. WikipediholicRat (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep National referendums are clearly notable and would have obviously received significant coverage in the Cuban media at the time. The issue is that this is likely not available online. The nomination rationale is effectively admitting WP:Systematic bias by only having searched English sources. Number 57 23:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - seems to have relevant Sp sources online (GScholar query for "1976 cuba referendo plebiscito"), and prolly has offline Sp sources too, so SIGCOV is prolly met imo. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

2010 Guangxi Wildfire


2010 Guangxi Wildfire (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)

Found on Random pages. The disaster unfortunately seems to lack substained coverage and broader impact - no deaths (fortunately!!), only almost burned a nature reserve, etc. Therefore fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Upper West Side stabbing attack


2026 Upper West Side stabbing attack (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)

Wikipedia is not a news site and it's too soon for an article on a crime that will likely not have lasting or persistent coverage. This particular crime is not especially high-profile outside of NYC (all the reactions in the "Reactions" section are from New York politicians and groups). The sources cited here are run-of-the-mill coverage; all of the sources are primary news sources published immediately after the attacks. Epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete: I strongly support the deletion per nom. While this is a tragedy, two people who were injured in a stabbing would not even be minimally notable, and likely wouldn't have received any news coverage without the alleged hate crime motif. Beyond that, much of the coverage is continued factlessconservative rabble rousing about the mayorship of Zohran Mamdani, and the article is written in a manner that is clearly biased towards this opinion. This type of article cannot, and should not be allowed to exist as a rehashing of the Israel-Palestinian issue, which is what it's likely, and in fact, already turning into. Foxtrot620 (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per rationale of nom. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not agree with the nomination rationale here that it should be deleted because the event is recently happened. We keep or delete articles based on the depth of coverage they have in reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS does not say that every recently occurring event should be deleted. The main concern is whether reliable sources provide significant coverage or not about the subject. The attack has received significant coverage from multiple independent sources, as witnessed by the inline citations within the body of the article, including The New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, NBC News, CBS News, Newsweek, ABC7 and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The sources discuss the two separate victims, the alleged selection of an Asian victim and an identifiably Jewish victim, the attack’s occurrence near a synagogue on Tisha B’Av, the alleged statements made during the attacks, the subsequent arrest, and the filing of attempted murder and hate crime charges. As of my knowledge WP:TOOSOON is a caution against assuming future significance. Notability is determined by the coverage already available, and the subject has received detailed reports from many national and international publications. Likewise, the fact that coverage began immediately after the event does not by itself make those reports unusable or primary. News organizations reports independently on an event are generally secondary sources for many of the facts they investigate and summarize. Instant History (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as cited by User:Instant History, the scope and breadth of the sources from national and global sources, and the in-depth coverage of the incident itself and of the reactions from prominent individuals about the stabbings demonstrates that the WP:GNG standard is met. The breadth of sourcing and coverages the non-relevance of claims of WP:NOTNEWS For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage or that this is the run-of-the-mill coverage of WP:ROUTINE Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. As to the claim that WP:TOOSOON being an argument for deletion, I'm not sure why an essay talking about crystal-ball events is relevant here, as the sources included in the article demonstrate that it has very much occurred. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the points above highlighting that not every hate crime garners coverage across all the major national papers of record, this event has garnered secondary coverage regarding the community and political response. This is not WP:ROUTINE.
  • Weak keep. Article is in very bad shape but coverage of this crime has clearly moved above run-of-the-mill coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS This even is too recent to establish any kind of lasting social or historical significance that would be worth capturing on Wikipedia. This is functions as synthesis for breaking news coverage which should be an article. AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep sources are high quality and reliable, they provide SIGCOV of the event, that, while sadly not an isolated incident in our day of age, is very much noteworthy, and similar pages have been/are created on Wikipedia all the time with no issues. I agree with Alansohn that WP:NOTNEWS refers to vastly different circumstances. ScottyNolan (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as it clearly has WP:SIGCOV. A nomination for deletion does not cover neutrality concerns as stated by many voters, please refer to WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The event is notable enough. As for WP:NOTNEWS concerns, refer to the comment by User:Instant History. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG with extensive significant coverage from major national and international outlets covering both the incident and the substantial political and community response. —Biosketch (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Disarmament of the German Jews


Disarmament of the German Jews (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 has no reliable citations (lacking any page numbers or direct links, just source names) for the body of the article at all except for a largely irrelevant anecdote from Catholic priests about Jews during Kristallnacht (it is a quote not an analysis), and the cited works listed at the bottom make it tedious to sift through to quick the information and see if the general POV of the article is even correct. M.S. Asher (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, History, Law, Judaism, Firearms, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Topic meets WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV and reportage and secondary commentary across multiple WP:RS. Whether the historical interpretation is accepted, disputed, or politically controversial is a matter of editorial balance and article improvement, and adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, and is not a basis for deletion. The relevant question at AfD is whether the topic has received sustained, independent coverage, which it clearly has. A selection:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep per Longhornsg; a clear WP:NEXIST case. Sourcing exists even if it's not in the article. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly notable. Article needs some work, but as many like to point out AfD is not article cleanup. Intothatdarkness 00:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep by the GNG and SIGCOV, per sources provided. Could also be speedied, as no delete reason compliant with NEXIST was provided. gidonb (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Missing page numbers are a formatting fix. A real historiographical debate is what lets an article be written neutrally. CocoaMuse (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Flanders Darts Trophy


2026 Flanders Darts 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)

Article contains 3 footnotes to the same primary source. I was not able to find any other coverage. Please ping me if other sources are found. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Draftify I created a draft for it hoping to get it up to mainspace standards before moving it there.
There will be Tour Card holder qualifiers on Thursday for the event, which will provide some source and coverage.
I think the creator should have worked on the article in draft space first to get it up to a suitable level. DartsF4 (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Draftify Event is months away from happening and is missing a good chunk of the confirmed field. Greenflipper (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

2023 Warren mayoral election


2023 Warren mayoral election (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)

Questionable notability 42-BRT (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes GNG. There is plently coverage about the former mayor's attempt to be eligible to run for reelection (instead of being term-limited). --Enos733 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disclosure: I basically rewrote the article last year. While I don't think that an article for a mayoral election for a city with this population/context (i.e., a suburb of Detroit, even one with a population >100K) would ordinarily pass GNG, I think this specific election does for two reasons: (1) coverage of the then-incumbent mayor's attempt to run for re-election, which produced significant coverage and a reported court decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals and (2) coverage of the effect of the winner's victory on control of the Michigan House of Representatives. PA Uploader (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Questionable notability" doesn't say what the problem is. Michigan's third-largest city had months of coverage, driven by the incumbent's removal from the ballot, and the winner's departure left the state House tied 54-54. Thin is a reason to expand. CocoaMuse (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Per PA Uploader. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence Appreciation Day


Artificial Intelligence Appreciation Day (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)

PC Gamer source is solid, but the other two independent sources are WP:FORBESCON and Khaleej Times, the latter of which give little information about the day itself. Unlikely to be expandable beyond a stub.

Little luck on a WP:BEFORE search. Ca talk to me! 01:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Football at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's tournament – Group A


Football at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's tournament – Group A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

The nomination also includes the following related articles:

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

I propose merging to Football at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's tournament because it is not clear that this is notable enough for a standalone article, and it fits the scope of that article. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 11:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Merge or Delete Per nom. Qby (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
@Mariamnei　@Qby
Why split the page for a tournament of such negligible importance and low profile? There is no need to go out of the way to create a detailed article when simply consolidating the information—as we do on the Japanese Wikipedia—would suffice.
Example:ja:2026年アジア競技大会におけるサッカー競技・男子
From a Japanese Wikipedian who has made significant contributions to the soccer section of the Japanese-language edition. Weathermania5 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, we do not need a standalone article. GiantSnowman 10:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Grand Slam of Darts


2026 Grand Slam of Darts (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)

Draft:2026 Grand Slam of Darts is in better shape than this article and at least has some sourcing. Draft should be improved until ready for main space and there is no need to keep this. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep until draft is ready then replace with draft. There's no need to AFD for such. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
    Having taken a moment to look a second time, I agree that this shouldn't be here. If there's anything not in the draft, then merge then delete, otherwise, just delete. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge with draft? As the draft creator I'm unsure why this is in mainspace. Greenflipper (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The Nightingale casting controversy


The Nightingale casting 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)

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Lacks WP:DIVERSE and WP:SUSTAINED /WP:PERSISTENCE coverage. Does not demonstrate WP:LASTING or WP:GEOSCOPE impact. A flury of media coverage in local press within a short window is not enough to show this is a notable event. We would need to see wider press coverage outside California which other than the Huffington Post this doesn't have (not surprising since this was a play staged at local theatre; how is this relevant outside of LA?). The play/production itself wouldn't pass GNG because it was staged at a minor theatre. If this were a Broadway show I could maybe see an article but not for a production at a regional theatre. Note that the only source outside of the month of July 2018 is the Huffington Post which is not considered reliable for political topics per WP:HUFFPOST.

At best this could be covered very briefly in the articles on the La Jolla Playhouse and actor Jonathan Pryce; both of which don't even mention the controversy. Although Pryce ended up turning down the part, so I don't think it would be WP:DUE in his article. In fact the controversy is not discussed in any of the relevant related articles; probably because the production itself is not notable which brings as back to the question, is this encyclopedic? I don't think so. 4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to The Nightingale (musical). Good catch. I think the play does meet notability guidelines. A few pts: La Jolla is not a minor theater, but a mid-size to large and well-known regional house. Coverage in the article is not local, but at least regional if not national: a workshop in San Diego covered in the LA Times, Backstage, and HuffPo in current sourcing, plus in the International Business Times. Lacking a subject-specific guide for plays, WP:NFF is instructive here, as this wasn't a full production, but a developmental workshop, and the controversey resulted in significant non-routine coverage of the play. There's routine coverage of the play from at-least (I count at least six workshops) 2007, 2011, and 2023. The development process for plays is different than film, but a series of workshops - the path to production and Broadway for many shows - is a strong parallel. The La Jolla workshop meets NFF's requirement for in-depth reporting, such as discussion, critical analysis, set visits, and detailed critiques. There should be multiple sources providing this kind of coverage for a standalone article to be warranted.. Sheik, Sater, Kaufman, and La Jolla Playhouse alongside Powerhouse, The Public/Joe's Pub, Eugene O'Neill Center are all themselves independently notable, and we have SIGCOV from the controversy.—BrechtBro (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Um, I don't think reviews of plays in workshop format are significant enough to count as WP:SIGCOV. These are shows in development, and not reviews of a final product. For Broadway shows, WP:WikiProject Theatre's general policy is to wait until after a show has officially premiered in non-workshop format and is not in preview or tryout stages (which comes after the workshop stage of development). If the show is still in workshop and hasn't even gone into previews it is absolutely too soon for an article on this show.4meter4 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I agree, except we're not looking at reviews - workshops aren't typically open to review and this one wasn't. Because of the controversy, we have a bunch of coverage of the play's development, which is highly unusual and suggests notability. NFF reads, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. (emphasis mine). —BrechtBro (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
NFF is a false analogy. Films play in multiple theaters and can be streamed. The audience for films is often global. A theatre workshop in a minor theatre (and LaJolla is minor. It is not Broadway or the West End or even in a second tier city like Chicago with a major theatre district) has very little audience reach even in the city where it ran. Workshop audiences tend to be small and poorly attended. It is no comparison to a film where the audience is large because it can play in many places simultaneously. A play has no relevant parallel to a film in regards to interpreting NFF. Note that NFF does not cover live theatre for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I don't believe any theater professional would describe La Jolla, a LORT B with a Tony award, as "minor."
Having a large audience is not the only path to notability for a creative work, the various subject specific criteria for them such as NBOOK, NFILM, NALBUM all mention independent sigcov as a criteria. WP:UNRELEASED says, of music, Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings, and related items) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Notability here is suggested by sigcov of the the play's development, and in a way that doesn't rely on any CRYSTALBALL speculation about the play's future. If the show was completely unimportant, there would be no coverage of the controversy—BrechtBro (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Regional theatre is regional theatre. You can give a theatre a Regional Theatre Tony Award (not a competitive award; this is actually more like a grant) for doing regional theatre well, and that's a nice feather in its cap but its still doing regional theatre. It's not eligible to compete for major theatre awards for its productions, it doesn't routinely get national and international press (unlike a Broadway or West End theatre) etc. There are lots of theatres all over the country with a regional Tony. It honors a certain aspect of American theatre, but it doesn't elevate that theatre into the major leagues (ie a theatre in a top market with a high profile media presence that extends beyond local news coverage on a routine basis).
As for NALBUM and the other SNGS... Again these are false analogies. Books are sold everywhere. Albums are released everywhere. People can buy them on the internet, on a kindle, at a book store, on a streaming platform etc. These are all mass media products with a potential global market. A local theatre workshop isn't a mass media product. It isn't consumable by the masses and is only viewable to a limited audience. We don't have a relevant SNG to apply here for a reason.
As for SIGCOV... this coverage is not significant. The coverage isn't even reviewing the musical in-depth or talking about it in any significant way. It's mostly focused on a casting controversy without actually talking about the show. There isn't a single solid quality review out of any of the sources presented. It's all press release/promotional adjacent coverage (mostly advertising upcoming workshop performances) without anything particularly meaningful to say. This reflects the fact that this particular show hasn't had a major staging anywhere, and has never been given a full production. Critics aren't going to give their full attention to a workshop because that isn't what is done. All we have here is a rather nominal controversy, and a bunch of fluffy promo press that doesn't actually dig into the show and give it a proper review. That's not GNG level coverage, and certainly isn't showing this show is encyclopedic. To compare look at the plethora of reviews for even short lived Broadway flops where the press actually has something real to say about the show with some quality analysis. That just doesn't exist here.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
There's no reviews because the play didn't open anywhere, critics do not review workshops (or previews, typically) because the gentlemen's agreement between producers and critics is that they are not allowed to, but it's extremely rare that a play's development itself is newsworthy--and we even have a column from the LA Times critic (not local!) discussing it. This is off-topic, but regional premiers routinely win the Pulitzer, fwiw; you seem to be describing a difference between the commercial theater and the not-for-profit theater, many regional theaters are considered to be extremely important in the field, particularly with regards to artistic rather than commercial qualities. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
La Jolla, like other significant regional theaters, is covered with some regularity in the national press, btw. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
The LAT article isn’t a review. It’s entirely about the casting controversy. It has nothing of substance to say on the musical itself. LA is also a stone’s throw away from San Diego. People commute between the cities. I wouldn’t consider it national but regional coverage. Regardless, that piece is again not a review and I wouldn’t consider it sig cov of the musical. I just want to point out that the topic here isn't LaJolla as a theatre. The question is about the musical. You really hit the nail on the head here with this: There's no reviews because the play didn't open anywhere, critics do not review workshops (or previews, typically) because the gentlemen's agreement between producers and critics is that they are not allowed to... We both agree on this. Critical reviews are what makes a standalone article on a show possible. That's the type of SIGCOV required. That just doesn't exist which is why deletion is the correct choice in this case. Chalk it up to a case of WP:TOOSOON. Once there is an actual production of the show with critical reviews then we can have an article. 4meter4 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
"Critical reviews are what makes a standalone article on a show possible" I don't believe there's any such guideline that says this, even WP:WikiProject_Theatre/Article_Structure says that critical response is an optional section. There are certain things we can't say about the play since it hasn't opened, but there are other things that we can, much of which is in this article. Articles on unreleased films have details about their production, and they have nothing to say about reception or plot. The production and development history of a play is of no less importance to a play than it is to a film. It's an unusual case, and that's why I'm saying keep. If it's TOOSOON, draftifying should be a reasonable ATD. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete - per nom and Ssilvers (but cover topic briefly in La Jolla Playhouse per nom), and since imo NFF wouldn't apply for a workshop/play :/ - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

2027 Indian Premier League


2027 Indian Premier League (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 Indian Premier League because, WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article already. Current article is mostly a copy-paste of 2026 article. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Draftify as a WP:ATD. Much better to have it in draft space so anyone can work on it over time there rather than leaving a redirect which will save time considering the time that it takes to convert a redirect into an article. Also better to have WP:REDLINKS which will end up leading anyone to the draft where they can contribute in the draftspace. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
move to draftspace. Too soon for mainspace, but would reasonably move back when it has more content — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify. I started this a bit ago, but because it's so far away I was expecting it to stay in drafts. Obviously I don't own the article, so my opinion shouldn't have any more weight, but I was expecting this to likely stay as a draft for just a little longer until there were more details released to make this work as its own article. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify. It is clearly not too soon, as the previous season has concluded. However, the subject currently does not have the SIGCOV to justify a standalone page at this time. That will change in the coming weeks and months, so draft space is the most appropriate location until such coverage is available. Frank Anchor 15:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify TOOSOON applies. Rustam Fan (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

22 April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing


22 April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing (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 Persecution of Hazaras because this is noted by reliable sources to be an instance of anti-Hazarism. However, this event is not notable since it fails WP:LASTING and it does not meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Thus, it does not meet WP:NEVENT HerrHeulsuse (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Better target would be List of terrorist incidents linked to Islamic State – Khorasan Province. Support a merge there. Target in nom is too broad IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge - to list given by PARAKANYAA, not to Persecution of Hazaras, per nom reasons. Aside: crazy work that this failed PERSISTENCE :( (the fa.wiki article only lists Apr-May 2018 sources too) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

17 October 2017 Afghanistan attacks


17 October 2017 Afghanistan attacks (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 has not been significant coverage of the event after it happened, so it fails WP:NEVENT. Originally, I wanted to merge to List of terrorist incidents in Afghanistan, but that page does not exist. If it is created during the discussion, I would support a merge. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge to 2017 in Afghanistan? If a better target comes around the redirect could always be moved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge - per nom reasons, to PARAKANYAA suggestion. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Oliver Tree's Celebration of Life


Oliver Tree's Celebration of Life (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 Oliver Tree#Death because most of the content is directly related to Tree's death and memorial, and the available sources mainly cover the announcement and details of the service. The information can be summarized in the "Death" section of the main Oliver Tree article. AdobongPogimasarap 🍛 02:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I knew this was going to happen; it's a stub, give it time. There's a good amount of information needed to be added, and also the event is currently taking place, which will bring more information. ReelCosmix (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
No, you add content to the main article, THEN propose a WP:SPLIT if needed. Reywas92Talk 16:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Events, and California. jolielover♥talk 08:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Oliver Tree#Death. It's a one-day event (yesterday) and it got some news coverage, and even though it might get a few more stories it is unlikely that they will contain any more details that can support a robust encyclopedic article. The current section at Oliver Tree's article can be expanded a bit with news of this memorial service, but a separate article is an unnecessary duplication. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy merge Do not create articles for the sake of having one. Give it time before creating a stub to see if there's enough information written that actually needs to be split. Very few funerals actually need separate pages, particularly when the main article isn't that long. Reywas92Talk 16:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Merge to Oliver Tree#Death per all of the rationales above. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Oliver Tree#Death. This article isn't good enough to be separate. Buddyboi2345 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
The two articles should remain separate, as the event lasted only one day and consolidation is unnecessary. Rip5677 (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge Ditto. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 20:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge It was a small, singular event and doesn't warrant it's own article. PlatypusAreDucks (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Oliver Tree#Death, this was a one day event. Hotrodguy84 (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

2004 Tashkent suicide bombings


2004 Tashkent suicide bombings (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 List of Islamist terrorist attacks because this page falls under WP:NOPAGE and very likely does not meet WP:NEVENT. There are books that cover this event after it happened, like this one, but this is from the US state department, which was involved in this event, so it is not WP:INDEPENDENT. In terms of WP:NEVENT, coverage does not demonstrate WP:LASTING effects or any casestudies HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Islamic Jihad Union, the perpetrator. The list is too broad to be a good redirect in lieu of this one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There has been substantial coverage over time of this event, as evident from Google Books. The nomination places undue emphasis on a single book, creating a distraction. For a short article, this one does a good job of focusing on the event itself rather than its background or aftermath. gidonb (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - seems to meet CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (quick GScholar search for >2005). Dunno about LASTING (but would err on does meet side given apparent coverage), and dunno about sources' independence (but would err on are independent from quick perusal). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

5 September 2016 Syria bombings


5 September 2016 Syria bombings (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 List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State and List of terrorist incidents in Syria because this fails WP:NEVENT, specifically WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:NOPAGE, and since there isn't any scholarly or news analysis of the event itself, it is better to put it in a list. Many of the news articles that can be found, if not all, just duplicate each other to a large extent. Good lists are supposed to give information of the things they collect, so it would be more encyclopedic if they were merged. It should not be deleted since it is sourced information, which while not notable, is due for inclusion in the list pages I suggested HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, you have to pick one target to redirect to for technical reasons. List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State seems more precise so I'd go with that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge: This article should be merged to List of terrorist incidents in Syria Alazar202 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

1969 Vnukovo Airport Il-18 crash


1969 Vnukovo Airport Il-18 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)

Editor who created the article is known to use LLMs (see WP:AINB § User:Global Donald) and 86% of text is still theirs, including several source/text mismatches and a lot of unsourced text. Decided against LLMPROD due to efforts by other editors to clean this up, but there's still way too much LLM, and too many potential inaccuracies. If someone wants to step forward to stubify that would be fine with me. M kuhner (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Usually I against deleting Soviet plane crashes due to its censorship in information; however, the reason it got nominated was not because of lack of secondary source or something like that, but because it was a mostly AI-generated article so I think, unless they could prove that it was translated from the original (Russian) one by LLM, this should be a punishment. No against stubbing too, but I think it only need to be a temporary solution.Ohok12 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
    I changed my mind. I'm stubbing it. Ohok12 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you. I don't think deletion is a punishment for the user, but we don't want LLM text on Wikipedia. Hopefully good sources can be found to build it back out. There's no attribution of the material to the Russian original that I can find, so if it was a translation, it was violating the rule that credit has to be given to the original. M kuhner (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
    From my perspective, it looks like it was a translation. Same things goes other of his aviation accident and incidents that I'm on a mission to recreate those. Using LLM to translate for me was ok, but should also giving credit to the origins. Ohok12 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Aramco refinery attack


2026 Aramco refinery attack (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 every strike during the 2026 Iran war is inherently notable, despite contemporaneous news coverage, per WP:NOTNEWS. This one in particular did not change the course of the war or receive majro secondary coverage and is one of dozens of salvos thus war by belligerents on each other's energy facilities. Merge into Saudi Arabia in the 2026 Iran war, where this strike can be covered in the context of the broader involvement of the two countries. Longhornsg (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

OPPOSE We should not merge it as this strike has had a major impact. The immediate rise in the oil prices and all those were a sudden event caused by that strike. Moreover, it has been noted that the Saudis launched their first covert strikes on Iran in late march as reported by Reuters in https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/saudi-arabia-launched-covert-attacks-iran-regional-war-widened-sources-2026-05-12/ , the strikes were mainly and majorly caused by the Iranian attack on the Ras Tanura oil refinery Kgeo2.0 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Iranian strikes on the Kurdistan Region


2026 Iranian strikes on the Kurdistan Region (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)

Merge into 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis, the broader political and military conflict that the Iranian strikes on Kurdistan have been a part of, per WP:NOPAGE. Combining the two pages provides a more comprehensive article about the crises, incorporating details of its military dimension as well. Longhornsg (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Per WP:SUMMARY, the 2026 Iranian strikes on the Kurdistan Region is a distinct military campaign that should be covered in detail in its own article, with a summary and main article linkage in the broader 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis article. The strikes article contains extensive coverage and sources, and other actors, which would make the crisis article unnecessarily large and less readable if merged. By the same logic, 2026 Iranian strikes on Israel would also have to be merged into the 2026 Iran war article. PawWiki2 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Kerala Fashion League


Kerala Fashion League (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 don't think it's Notable need community opnion Shauryal (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I see this from New Indian Express, this from Deccan Chronicle, and a few less sigcov ones I think this squeaks it thru.Jishara (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete - You need to read this WP:NEWSORGINDIA no author sources only churnalism ~2026-41472-22 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Note: Page was nominated for deletion by a sock. Johnj1995 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Demetrius's Winter offensive in Southern Illyria


Demetrius's Winter offensive in Southern Illyria (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)

Clearly AI-generated without sufficient review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree that it seems to be LLM. Such articles are better deleted as they are extremely hard to fix. M kuhner (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

2001 UEFA–CAF Meridian Cup


2001 UEFA–CAF Meridian Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to UEFA–CAF Meridian Cup because the artcle has been unreferenced since 2011 and doesn't meet full notability. Several of the other Meridan Cup articles have the same issue. Majash2020 (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect – Lack of sources and verifiability Publicwalrus (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

1997 UEFA–CAF Meridian Cup


1997 UEFA–CAF Meridian Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to UEFA–CAF Meridian Cup because the article has been unreferenced since 2011, with several of the other Meridian Cup articles remain unreferenced Majash2020 (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect – Lack of sources and verifiability Publicwalrus (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

2024 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Men's single


2024 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Men's single (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 2024 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships because of an absence of secondary coverage of this event. C679 09:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related articles:

2024 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Women's single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2024 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Men's sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2024 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Women's sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C679 10:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

2025 Serbian National Assembly fight


2025 Serbian National Assembly fight (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:NEVENT, as coverage does not appear to be continued, with not even a "one year from" article that I could find. Additionally, the article seems to be AI-generated, so a WP:TNT could be in order even if the topic is later conclusively proven to be notable. JustARandomSquid (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Bertha (2026)


Tropical Storm Bertha (2026) (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 2026 Atlantic hurricane season because the subject is simply not notable enough to remain independent of the seasonal article at this point in time. Much of the preparations are routine and the impacts are minor. The season's page is also 1,400 words at this point in time. I imagine some will claim that it will likely become notable but that seems like a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (I am aware it does not match up perfectly, but it somewhat conveys my point as there is a legitimate chance this storm has minimal impacts in Texas).

Also, if consensus is found to merge Bertha, please make a draft copy of this article. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Physics. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I also forgot to mention that Bertha is about four hundred words and three thousand bytes under what I consider to be the minimum for splitting a tropical cyclone article (1,000 words and 20,000 bytes). ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    The article has expanded closer to my personal bounds outlined above meaning my opinion on this discussion has moved more towards neutrality. I still feel like Bertha's impacts are rather routine. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The storm clearly passes GNG. Note that the nominator told the AfC submitter that the article must also "reach WP:SPLIT criteria" ; SPLIT is not a policy or a guideline. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    There is quite a bit of precedent against GNG being used in TC articles. See this thread where many good articles have been merged due to WP:SIZERULE. In this AFD, four tropical cyclones that were well over GNG requirements. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    What I see there looks at a glance to be yet another case of a WikiProject trying to overrule Wikipedia policy with its own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, just in this case the local consensus being more restrictive, not less as is the usual; but either way, its still has no policy grounding and is a local consensus. Also note that SIZERULE says nothing about merging as long as an article is over 150 words. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    I really need to get around to actually working on the policy (SNG, subject specific MOS) to codify these practices. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    SNGs have been all but depreciated in favor of GNG or bust. This may or may not be an improvement (IMHO the G in GNG should be general as in "everything else not individually covered", not general as in "everything"), but it is what it is. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    It does not seem like they are depreciated based on wording at the section WP:SNG. Also, I was reminded of WP:NEVENT, which I am inclined to think Bertha is, at best, teetering on the edge of as this article at this moment has no lasting effects due to being currently active (minus some FEMA fixes from Hurricane Francine), impacts a rather small region of the world, and has meh depth and duration of coverage. A huge chunk of it is also WP:ROUTINE. Hurricane Fausto (2026) has had similar coverage on some level but definitely deserves no independent article.
    Also, making GNG be the only requirement could lead to a slippery slope and a huge unraveling of two decades of consensus. Practically every tropical cyclone, at least in the Atlantic for the past decade or so are discussed in reliable sources passing WP:SIGCOV. I see no reason to undo this consensus already tested at many AFDs and merge discussion as it will strain manpower for little to no benefit. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    In re, specifically to the the thread and MfD that is linked above. I worry about creating an echo chamber of sorts. From what I can tell, it was project page discussion and then the MfD was mostly populated with merge votes from members of that same project. I'm not saying it's a malicious echo chamber by any means, but I do worry about project specific consensus dictating an entire community, particularly when it comes to gatekeeping what storms are notable enough or not to deserve an article. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    Isn't the last part the purpose of WP:N? The entire Wikipedia community except for some radicals against notability requirements gatekeep on some level, though not to the same extent as WPWX. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    The slippery slope has long since been tobaggoned down with the depreciation of long-established consensus SNGs like AIRCRASH and SOLDIER in favor of "GNG for one, GNG for all, and all else shall perish". As I said, it's not something I personally agree with, but it's how things work on Wikipedia's world in this day and age, and we just have to live with it. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the AfC reviewer who approved this article. Clearly meets WP:GNG and as stated by The Bushranger, the nominating editor has been incorrectly citing 'policy' for bold actions that go against consensus [eg, citing WP:SPLIT. I'm also not sure what the size of the word count has to do with anything. The nom also states "much of the preparations are routine and impacts are minor", however this is purely opinion based and as nom brings up is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. This all seems to be motivated from a personal and/or project based preference for how these pages are handled instead of acknowledging precedent and WP:GNG policies. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    To say this proposal is against precedent is quite incorrect. It might not be fully grounded in codified policy (though I still object to that), but this has been the system weather events have been running on for two decades and tested by limited, but global discussion like those at AFD or merge proposals. List of earthquakes in 2026 and preceding years along with quite a bit of chemistry have also been running on something similar. If most of the coverage on a subject is minor or routine, the consensus is to merge it within a centralized article.
    Also, many of the impacts happen with normal rainstorms and are of a local focus. Besides Yale Climate Connections, which described rainfall as intermitten and a heat wave caused by Bertha being a nothing burger of a storm, I have yet to see a national or international source discuss the impacts of Bertha and I am the main author of this article. That almost serves as proof that Bertha's impacts are minor or routine. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    And now I have to eat my own words on that last because first that pops up on Google as I am trying to beef up this article is NBC Nightly News summarizing the impacts. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify or merge - I’m surprised it was published with so minimal impacts. The article is largely based on preparations, so maybe draftify if there are some significant impacts that haven’t been included yet. Otherwise merge. The season is projected to be quiet, so the Bertha article essentially would be a content fork. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep as it passes WP:GNG. RedAmi! (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Following the wikiproject convention here is appropriate. Although there is sufficient news coverage to pass GNG, many of these are quite routine meteorology and local warnings that do not represent major impacts. Simply passing GNG does not necessarily guarantee the need for a standalone article. The Gulf Coast prepares for many topical storms during hurricane season, being in local news for good reason, but if there's nothing WP:LASTING to some heavy rain it doesn't need a standalone article. The main article can provide a summary without unnecessary news details like an inundated road or a routine downed power line. Even if kept if greater impacts materialize, it should avoid excessive specific examples like a delayed rodeo. I'd also note that the deprecation some SNGs is of those that allowed articles under a lower standard than GNG like sportspeople who played one game professionally; those with stricter recommendations are good and necessary to prevent floods of routine events only briefly in the news (no pun intended). Reywas92Talk 02:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Wait: First, instead of referring to WP:GNG we should refer to WP:NEVENT. Creation may have been premature but the storm does have potent to cause more damage as its moving right along the Gulf Coast. There will likely be a lot more information in WP:RS to expand the article. If we find not enough WP:LASTING impact or no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after several months, the article is probably best merged. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 02:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Neutral - as what hurricane wind and fire said, bertha does have potential to cause more damage across its track, however if no reports of casualties or damage have been reported for several months like Narda of 2025, then we’ll propose merge ZonResearcher (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment - The NCDC will definitely update the Storm Events Database with Bertha in a few months, we’ll be able to determine then whether damage is notable enough. Lorena didn’t have this ability because the SMS in Mexico does not keep a similar database.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:ROUTINE. More than half the article describes from primary sources the average life-span of a tropical system and the standard preparations that are undertaken. I don't see anything being described as remarkable or record breaking. I just want to note that a merger does not delete the article's history, it can always be undone if and when more information becomes available (WP:TOOSOON). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    De jure, I want this merged if consensus is found but, de facto, I want this to be draftified so I and others can keep working on it incrementally. I was not sure how to communicate this in my nomination so apologies if I was not clear. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep I expanded the article a little and found that the storm is contributing to floods over Tennessee, Virginia and the Carolinas, boosting the notability. But also, I think that the separate subsections are making the article seem shorter than it is. Tropical Storm Ophelia (2023) is about as long as this article but it not being divided into subsections made the article seem longer then this one. ChagrinEr (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
I get what you are saying in the second half of your keep opinion, but that's still a WP:WAX argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I reorganized the article somewhat to show what I mean about the excessive subsections. ChagrinEr (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with what ChagrinEr said. ~2026-37957-34 (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Bertha has already lasted longer than and directly affected more regions than Tropical Storm Arthur (2026), which also has an article. Moreover, by looking for news coverage of Bertha, I already found three sources of interest not referenced in this article as of this post: AP News, The Washington Post, and CNN. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Bertha continues to have a major effect on the Houston area. Definitely notable enough to have a standalone article. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep per above. ChessEric 23:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Bertha was already a pretty impactful storm this season, plus, its article is around 28,000+ bytes, I feel like that’s long enough for it to have its own standalone page. Ajs757 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge - Bertha didn't really do anything, and it's just a tropical storm. ~2026-34483-87 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Functionally a WP:TOP4 !vote. Bit of WP:UNKNOWNHERE too. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Why shall we have an article for Arthur (2020) and not Bertha (2026)? Surely if Arthur (2020) has one so shall Bertha (2026). Hurricane Jacob (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
WP:OSE argument. Arthur is longer in a larger season and had international impacts. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Ana (2015) is still pretty similar. Hurricane Jacob (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Weak Oppose for Merging While the effects of Bertha were rather routine, and could probably be merged without too much issue, there is likely enough length and sourcing that some info would be lost at this point if a merge were done. AutisticYapper (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge No one is reported hurt, it's quite boring. dajanes
WP:BORING. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Maharaja Trophy KSCA T20


2026 Maharaja Trophy KSCA T20 (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 Maharaja Trophy KSCA T20 because, no WP:SIGCOV on independent WP:reliable sources other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage; fails WP:GNG for a standalone article. Vestrian24Bio 11:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 14:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as not enough coverage to have a separate article of its own.

2002 Qasim Nagar massacre


2002 Qasim Nagar massacre (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)

For an event to exist on Wikipedia, it must pass WP:NEVENT, which this does not. Google Books shows three pages of results, but most of these are not from reliable sources. This is because the author is often not specializing is any relevant field and the publisher is not reputable. Google Scholar shows 2 results, one of which is a wiki (self-described) and the other is an inaccessible citation. Google News shows some coverage shortly after the event. Then, most of the other coverage is not WP:SIGCOV, except for which is not from a reputable media outlet. Relevant concerns from the NEVENT page are WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE (local to Kashmir), WP:CASESTUDY, WP:ROUTINE (terrorist attacks in Kashmir are very, common compared to other regions) and WP:DIVERSE (only news sources) HerrHeulsuse (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep The article already has several citations from both local and international outlets, including The Independent' (UK) and Voice of America (US), which challenges the WP:GEOSCOPE concern raised above. Also, a quick search found additional coverage not yet cited, including articles in The Guardian,"Massacre in Kashmir slum renews fear of war"] and BBC News, "Kashmir killings condemned"]. The frequency of Kashmir insurgency attacks doesn't make this one non-notable. And WP:ROUTINE typically refers to scheduled, everyday coverage like weddings or baseball games, not a massacre. SupermarketCake (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
WP:NEVENT says
"Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e.
news values
, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media event may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article."
HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think this is just a news story with no sustained secondary coverage. I tried to find a suitable merge target, but this is just isn't significant to any broader subject. Does the Qasim Nagar neighborhood have significant coverage besides a one-off event? If not, I'll support deleting or redirecting to List of terrorist incidents in Jammu and Kashmir. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
It probably does, in Kashmiri or another South Asian language, but we would need editors to work on it. I think that if we merge and redirect to your suggested page, then the history will be available to merge into a Qasim Nagar page if it is later created. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Regardless of what ends up happening to the event article, I've created an article for the location since I was able to find some coverage in Hindi and Urdu. It's barebones, especially because I was restrained in what information I grabbed from the sources, since I was reading them through machine translation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

2025 Khulna JCD–SAD clash


2025 Khulna JCD–SAD clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NEVENT. Just a routine clash between political parties, with no significance or lasting impact... — Raihanur (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit: I support the merge proposed below.. — Raihanur (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Merge: I think it is better to merge in Aftermath of the July Uprising article as it has information so better to merge it. Marxsafe (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. I added 15 sources to a {{refideas}} on the article's talk page. The event received international coverage. It resulted in the university being closed for 160 days, protests at other universities, the VC being fired, the first replacement VC resigning, and the teachers going on strike. So not entirely routine, and had some lasting impact. There may be a better title for it, but it would be best to develop it as a stand alone article. After the topic is fully developed, evaluate whether it should be summarized at Khulna University of Engineering & Technology or merged there. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep and improve. The event has significant secondary coverage. However, if it does not expand to a significant length, I think it would be better to Merge it into Aftermath of the July Uprising. Overall, I think we should wait until we can see if there is any actual need to merge. Entychologist (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Angel Comedy

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

Notability. No new independent coverage in the decade since the last nomination. Only reference has succumbed to link rot. WindTempos she/they (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Does the lack of recent new coverage matter when the only reason it's links are limited to one, as best I can tell, is because the event's founding history has been stripped out of the article over the last few years, for no reason that is obvious to me? The one big edit claimed to be removing "nonsense," but culled most of the text when none of it had been added randomly or in any way that appears to be fluff or vandalism. I have no idea if the events are still ongoing, but looking at what that user stripped out, it would seem that the history of Angel Comedy was once newsworthy enough to be notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Should it be reconstructed first, and any necessary links redirected to their archived versions, before we decide to delete it or not?Kat (a.k.a. CleverTitania) (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
The big edit that removed everything seems fine and everything there was definitely un-encyclopedic in tone, unsourced, and perhaps fluff. The real issue is with the edit by an SPA marked as improving the article, which removed pretty much every source while replacing it with the unsourced fluff that was later removed. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: even the first nomination ended as "no consensus" rather than an outright "keep"; certainly our standards have not exactly loosened since then. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:BEFORE brings up some more recent, independent sources which indicate notability. Most centre on the Bill Murray venue, so a merge or redirect to The Camden Head wouldn't fit. Orange sticker (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

2024 Dhing gang rape case


2024 Dhing gang rape case (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 are no relevant hits with significant coverage in Google Books or Google Scholar, which shows the event does not have continued coverage, failing WP:CASESTUDY. The articles on Google News are all regional Indian newspapers (which are infamously of dubious quality), and only cover the event soon after it happened, so it fails WP:DIVERSE. Since some of the perpetrators who allegedly committed this crime are still alive, WP:BLPCRIME applies. The event is also WP:ROUTINE, since rape in India is fairly common, and the victim did not die. The event was also a one-off thing, so it does not fulfill WP:LASTING HerrHeulsuse (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep This incident received widespread coverage from major national outlets, including The Hindu and India Today. More importantly, it clears WP:GNG and WP:LASTING due to its significant wider impact: it triggered a massive, high-profile political conflict between, sparked statewide protests, and involved the controversial drowning death of the prime suspect while in police custody, drawing national scrutiny to police conduct and extrajudicial outcomes in the region. This article therefore secures its encyclopedic significance under WP:GNG
MissBVCC (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on this right now. Political conflict and major protests do indicate possible WP:LASTING effects. Has anyone searched for sources in Assamese? But to challenge a few arguments: BLP crime can be resolved by removing names (if my understanding is correct), whether the victim died is irrelevant to notability, and news coverage is insufficient to meet GNG or NEVENT if the subject wasn't revisited outside of breaking news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
    Further developments in the case itself is not necessarily enough to make it pass WP:CASESTUDY, and I have heard that academia in Indian languages (especially regional ones, like Assamese) is rather weak. The reliability of news sources in Assamese may also be brought into question HerrHeulsuse (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rape in India. Wikipedia is not a news website and the article is written like a news story. According to the article, this is just one of two dozen similar cases in Dhing since elections were held, which is a rather vague timeframe. The article doesn't explain why this crime is any more significant than any of the other 23 cases referred to. While deletion is not a solution for articles that need clean-up, I think a more encyclopedic treatment is needed of (gang) rape in this part of India. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Either keep or delete, oppose redirect. Redirecting individual cases to super broad articles that aren't lists is bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • India reports thousands of rape cases every year. Creating standalone articles for every individual case is neither practical nor encyclopaedically appropriate unless the incident has long-term national significance. This case appears to be another criminal incident that received news coverage but has not demonstrated lasting standalone notability. A better approach would be to redirect this page to Rape in India and merge any relevant, well-sourced content there. Chronos.Zx (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect: The case does not fulfill WP:LASTING, but it has WP:SIGCOV. And I agree with User:Chronos.Zx's rationale. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Kabul gurdwara attack

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

It turns out that the initial nomination was indeed correct. No coverage appears on google books or google scholar. This means that the article does not pass WP:EVENT, since event requires WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - it does, in fact, pop up - for example here in an academic journal article on Gurdwaras in Afghanistan, and here in a book about religious war Jishara (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
The book does not further analysis the event anymore than the news papers did. It does not try to explain why it was done, where it fits with other Islamic terror incidents, how it affected the community, etc.
The academic journal just says the following about the attack:
"on March 2020 on Gurdwara in Kabul, Afghanistan, where BBC news reported that more than
200 worshipers were inside the temple and 25 were killed and many more were injured. “The
Washington post” reported that “The Islamic extremist and militant organization Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has claimed responsibility”. After that attack the gurdwara was
abandoned for big gatherings worshiping. Not any serious act was taken by government the only
assistance from government was that 50 lakh Afghani rupees were allotted for the renovation of
Sikh and Hindu places of worship (Gurdwara) by President Ashraf Ghani."
I will concede that this can be considered SIGCOV. But this is one book/journal that covers the event after 6 years. This does not meet NEVENT. Using the information extracted from any coverage after, you can't say that it had any lasting effect. The Afghan government didn't do anything (as explained in the above source), and it was just abandoned for big gatherings.
If a location being abandoned for big gatherings as a result of an event makes it notable, we would see lots of articles about disastrous weddings. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Save the Children Jalalabad attack


Save the Children Jalalabad attack (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 has no coverage on google books or google scholar. Fails WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of significant coverage in the New York Times, CNN, Wall Street Journal. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep per @MissBVCC and @Agnieszka653. There is also coverage well after the initial news cycle, countering the WP:PERSISTENCE concern. Human Rights Watch covered the attack in 2021, and a 2023 George Washington University Program on Extremism article discusses it in the context of ISKP attacks on humanitarian organizations. SupermarketCake (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. There is significant coverage from BBC News, The New York Times, and Al Jazeera. The attack killed six people, injured 27 others, and led Save the Children to suspend its operations in Afghanistan. Lone Wolf howl 08:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    Yet WP:PERSISTENCE says "duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance." and " a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable". HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep It is surprising to see this page even being nominated. It was a major terrorist attack, and passes all the criterias mentioned by the nominator User:HerrHeulsuse. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Shooting of Liz Barraza


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

It is likely that WP:NVICTIM is not met, thus this fails WP:GNG. There are WP:NOT issues, too: WP:NOTSOAPBOX - Wikipedia is not a place to highlight unfairness and unsolved crimes; WP:NOTMEMORIAL though this is more tenuous, except that there is a great deal about the victim and far less about the crime. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I should have added in the nomination that the shooting itself is not notable. Shootings im the USA and Texas are everyday happenings. Total WP:GNG failure. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
This is a notable shooting as the shooter was wearing a costume and the nature of the shooting suggests a coordinated plan by her husband to murder her. This shooting is still relevant and discussed to this day in true crime communities. ~2026-39296-88 (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. NVICTIM doesn't apply, because this is an event article, not a biography article. However, this also fails WP:NEVENT. FWIW I declined this at AFC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • At least four national references exist, seven if including podcasts. NBC and HBO Max shows devoted episodes solely to the case. Newsweek and People both did articles exclusively about the case and several notable podcasts (which have their own pages) too. About a dozen other local (state) newspaper articles exclusively (not passing mentions) about the case exist. Darrelljon (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose deletion. Darrelljon (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete In my view fails GNG. Podcasts and "true crime" stuff is common with just about everything these days. Intothatdarkness 13:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Missy Bevers where this will be discussed and either deleted or kept. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Are there any other unsolved murders in the world where the suspect was caught on camera albeit in disguise? Darrelljon (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Deletion This article does not fail the cited notability guidelines, as this event has been covered in national press consistently over the course of 6 years (People Magazine covered the event when it happened in 2019, again in 2020, then again in 2026 for example). Additional coverage can be found in NBC News, Inside Edition, Newsweek, among others. This event also has dedicated episodes on national television programs (available on Apple TV, Amazon Prime, HBO). All notability requirements are sufficiently met, therefore this article should not be deleted. Davefarmer (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
This is the only contribution made under this username. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davefarmer. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of the participants here may have been WP:canvassed via Reddit Ca talk to me! 16:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
    That is an insanely creepy subreddit. I had no idea things like this existed outside of Gabby Petito. Though it's kind of funny seeing them talking about imaginary "moderators" and confusing "unusual" with significant because they've invested so much energy into this one specific true crime story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, random news story that isn't described outside of routine coverage you'd expect from a murder, and the inevitable true crime "investigators". I'd normally consider merging this into a general list covering major stories in this topic area, but such a page would fly in the face of our general rule on respecting low-profile victims of crimes and their privacy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
    You consider Newsweek, NBC News, and Dateline “routine coverage” for a murder? This event has had national coverage for 7 years. ~2026-39756-96 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
    Another one-off, although with the IP mask it's hard to tell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-39756-96 Lamona (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - there has been ongoing speculation and coverage for years now. Newsweek is a deprecated source, but there is otherwise significant coverage. I've not been canvassed. Bearian (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 17:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - definitely seems to have significant coverage based on sources provided, and it seems to be sufficiently sustained to pass NOTNEWS. Also, for clarity, no, I have not been canvassed. Jishara (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment 'run of the mill' murders do not normally get escalated to Texas Rangers and FBI to investigate such as in this case. Darrelljon (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
  • keep based on search in google; article can be improved. The coverage is different than a routine murder or death. It is in national news and beyond routine. Jumplike23 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
  • keep - significant coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I looked at the podcasts but am not familiar with any of them. What criteria should be applied to determine if these are reliable sources? With web/news sites we use evidence of editorial control. I can't find info on these podcast sites that would give that information. Is the default then "unreliable"? Lamona (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
    Found a bit of info on Crime Junkie: Welcome to Crime Junkie, the weekly true crime podcast where two lifelong best friends discuss the gripping cases they can’t get out of their heads... Ashley and her team are committed to creating responsible true crime content. That's basically it - the rest is promo. Well, even this is promo but it implies that this is a 2-person editorial effort. Lamona (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks