Wikipedia:XfD today

Speedy deletion candidates

Candidates for speedy deletion

1inch

User:Alphahook/sandbox

Draft:Brian Long

Draft:Dj Kisswise

Draft:Dorothy Dutton

Talk:Egyptian Martyrs' Day

User:JrTovar/sandbox

User:Khalojison

Draft:Kushwanshi Kshatriya

The Last Spark of Hope

Draft:Mike Miller (bowler)

Draft:Mike Miller (bowler) 2

Amar Mukunda

Draft:Saideep Ganesh

User:Soccerfan2025/sandbox

Sudanese Optometry Society

Surrey national football team

Thạnh Hưng (disambiguation)

User:Windgrail/sandbox

Draft:Yobotobo

Draft:Zepp Solutions

Articles

Guide to deletion

2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids
• Articles for deletion/2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids (2nd nomination)

2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids (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 LGBTQ rights in Turkey because:

1) The background info is relevant to similar crackdowns in the past, none of which have their own articles. If the article is merged then the readers of the resulting article will more easily understand common factors between crackdowns in different years in the past. Also editors (such as myself) are more likely to update.

2) As far as I know there are no new laws about it since the previous crackdown.

3) The EU stance is longstanding, not specific to this particular crackdown

For info: Previous merge proposal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids was procedurally closed because article was re-added to "In the news". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1376747348 In Turkish Wikipedia it is integrated not a separate article. Both pages are a little under 6000 words but after merging I would reduce the size by removing duplicate info and excess detail Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, LGBTQ+ studies, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Interspecific social behaviour in animals

Interspecific social behaviour in animals (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, or redirecting to Symbiosis. This page seems largely AI generated (bulleted points, referencing Wikipedia itself) - GPTZero believes the final paragraph alone is 100% AI, which does not surprise me. The topic which it covers would easily be covered by the subject of 'Interspecific interactions', which is a redirect to Symbiosis. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 06:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Bradmoor Island

Bradmoor Island (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)

Another island in the Sacramento River delta with nothing significant notability wise about this island. Fails WP:NGEO like the 2 other Islands I nominated for deletion: I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason:

Deadman Island (Solano County) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bacon Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Goat Island (Solano County) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Snag Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Suisun Bay or List of islands of California#Suisun Bay as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The last article in the bundle had a typo in the {{la}} syntax that broke it; this has been repaired. (No opinion on the articles.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Some years ago I created a number of stubs about islands; all of them pass WP:GEONATURAL as named natural features (islands) and all pass WP:GNG with multiple pieces of additional sourcing that meets WP:SIGCOV. All were made after being specifically evaluated as viable candidates for expansion to B-class or GA. Okay, that is the WP:UPPERCASE; onto the articles themselves. These island stubs, in basically every case, have strong potential for expansion. For example: Island No. 2 (currently a GA) started as this; Fox Island (also a GA) looked like this. The same (including GA passes) is true of Fordson Island (original version), Spud Island ( original version) and about a dozen others. Perhaps most relevantly, the current FA Powder House Island also began as a stub virtually identical to the ones here nominated. These are not mass-created database stubs; they are individual articles created after a specific evaluation of sourcing. Moreover, they were created some years ago, and Web searches have gotten considerably better in the intervening time, so I would estimate that they are now even easier to expand than they were at the time of their creation. Note that a rather large number of island articles I created have been nominated at the same time, to which the same considerations apply, so I will raise the same issues at each (would recommend a bundled nomination in the future to avoid this issue). jp×g🗯️ 17:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  Currently expanding Montezuma Island, from the other nomination. Looking at the dates, I see that I only noticed these nominations quite deep into the week; I therefore humbly request a relist of the AfDs so that I may work on them further. jp×g🗯️ 17:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep as with Hog Island (Petaluma River) per the reasoning offered by JPxG. Clears WP:GEONATURAL as a named geographic feature.

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are 4 additional island article nominated here, which participants did not address?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

List of video games featuring Miis

List of video games featuring Miis (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'm not seeing a single source here that describes "games featuring Miis" as a topic to pass WP:NLIST, and about half of it appears to be unsourced WP:OR. Discussion of Miis overall certainly exists, and that is appropriately covered at the main article on the avatars, but all the sourcing here is reviews of individual games, which does not establish collective notability. Possible selective merge to Mii as an AtD. MidnightMayhem (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. MidnightMayhem (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Searching for "Mii support" gets many many articles from RS, such as this and this. I suggest a rename to List of video games with Mii support, as the name seems to be throwing things off. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't remember creating this page, but apparently I did like 8 years ago. And I see why I did now: Per Talk:List of video games featuring Miis, looks as though I was getting a bit tired of their being multiple articles with the same information. So yeah, keep to retain everything that was merged here. Steel1943 (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Zxcvbnm's sources are news articles about specific games and do not prove LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  Well, Miis are provably independently notable. Many sources talk about Miis in the context of games that support them. Saying "sources must talk specifically about the concept of Mii support" seems like following the letter and not the spirit of the law. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Only reliable source I found that discusses Mii games as a set is The A.V. Club: . Others are WP:VALNET sources that shouldn't be used to demonstrate notability: , . --Mika1h (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep and rename per Zxcvbnm. Shocksingularity (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep As Miis are inherently a part of games, and Mii is a perfectly notable topic, the WP:LISTN requirements are automatically fullfilled. And then in addition we have the sources collected here. We also do have secondary sources as references for a number of the individual entries, more can be found, and for others we have the primary sources present automatically through the structure of the list. So nothing is unsourced, and I cannot see a WP:OR problem. Daranios (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: That Miis are notable has very little to do with the notability of this list: why does this meet LISTN?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In my view Miis can hardly be separated from video games featuring Miis. Miis of individual players by definition are, well, individual. So discussing Miis as a group or set, which is the main way to fullfill WP:LISTN, in my view automatically means discussing how the concept of Miis is put into practice by various games. That is what the Mii article does for the most part. Daranios (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not have an opinion as to the continued existence of an article. But when we have an article about Miis, the notability of Miis doesn't also grant notability to the list. LISTN and PAGEDECIDE still need to be addressed. It's quite possible that a list of games featuring Miis is notable, but the argument to show that needs to go beyond saying that Miis are notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep As stated above, there are many reliable sources noting Miis in individual games, which should count for something. More importantly, this PC Games article discusses not only Miis as such, but also the history of games featuring Miis. "Making Mii: studying the effects of methodological approaches and gaming contexts on avatar customization" mostly discusses Miis and personal avatars globally, but also has some commentary on video games featuring Miis as a group. Together with the mentioned A.V. Club article, I think these fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:LISTN's suggestion of a list topic being discussed as a group or set. The list could still be merged into the Mii article for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (and should be, if a consensus should emerge that WP:LISTN is not fullfilled after all, based on WP:PRESERVE), but I think keeping those separate is the better option based on size and readability. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  Those are fine sources for proving the notability of Miis themselves, but not particularly for this list. The focus of the sources is really about the Miis themselves - the games they appear in are only mentioned as an afterthought- the equivalent of passing mentions. Same goes for any of the sources mentioned in this AFD - it's really quite a stretch to assert notability is established for this lists particular subset. (The proposed rename doesn't solve this either.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist? Comment on the nominator selective merge AtD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Bajestan Playa

Bajestan Playa (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)

Contested PROD. I suspect this may have been AI-generated per Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 217#Bajestan Playa (nom). Launchballer 06:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Ape Principal

Ape Principal (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:NFILM. Refs are routine coverage of special event listings, director interviews, clickbait and 404's. scope_creep^Talk 05:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sri Lanka. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. A search of Sarasaviya's own site reveals a full review of the film, "අපේ ප්‍රින්සිපල් දිල්හානිගේ හයියෙන් ගොඩගිය චිත්‍රපටයක්" (18 April 2024) . It is a critical review. It states that the concept of this movie sticks closely to the 2019 Tamil film Raatchasi and that Dilhani Ekanayake is responsible for the success of this film. It also points out the shortcomings of the director in that he did not deal with what happened after the conclusion: catching one drug peddler and shutting down one shop does not solve the problem that is presented in the movie. Sarasaviya is a government film magazine of Sri Lanka and has a dedicated reviews section. This is only one full-length review where WP:NFILM requires two, so I am not arguing that the film clearly passes. Nevertheless, the description of the sourcing given in the nomination as "routine coverage of special event listings, director interviews, clickbait and 404's" cannot be maintained, and searching the Sinhala outlets themselves may yield better results than Google. El Banhara (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have WP:THREE reviews, post them up. I looked at the first 8 references and they are extremely poor. scope_creep^Talk 06:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Sri Lankan films of the 2020s as an WP:ATD. The source linked above appears to be an actual review, but there is nothing more. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hunterian Professorship

Hunterian Professorship (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 source was the closest I could find to any significant coverage of this title. Every other source I could find were either passing mentions, routine coverage of winners, or primary sources. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lazman321 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Basically this is a list of recipients (all of whom are notable) of a notable title. It needs expanding, but I don't see a problem with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Necrothesp. The notability lies in the individual recipients. It's only going to be there that you really see the ideals of the title fleshed out, since such reports ostensibly have to explain why it is that the individual is worthy of its receipt.

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not many policy based arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Qué Rico Ch**gamos

Qué Rico Ch**gamos (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 Saturno (album) because, aside from the fact that the article is AI-generated, it does not meet WP:GNG or the higher standards of WP:NSONG. the only time people have talked about it is when reviewing the album, or when its music video released, and I don't think the best source on that is SIGCOV 1brianm7 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Puerto Rico. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Music Feeds

Music Feeds (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)

Unsourced for years. My attempts to find sources only turned up press releases, republished press releases, and routine coverage (WP:CORPTRIV). The name of the magazine probably complicates trying to find sourcing, but I have been unsuccessful in finding substantial third-party coverage of the publication. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and Australia. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of News media-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Radio Dunyaa Vision (RDV)

Radio Dunyaa Vision (RDV) (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)

Unsourced, no evidence of notability. Paradoctor (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the above reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swirlymarigold (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Senegal. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This is a television page, not something for deletion Moursan2008 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  To keep the page as an article, we need evidence of WP:notability. Can you provide such evidence? Paradoctor (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• @BhikhariInformer: What's unclear about the consensus here? Moursan2008 did not provide any reason in support of keeping. Paradoctor (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Both the votes, irrespective of whether delete or keep, are based on WP:ATA arguments and come from less experienced editors. They don't help to form a strong consensus....so, nothing wrong to have this for another week, hoping that we can get some opinions from our more experienced editors. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  What about my vote? Or do nominators not get one? Paradoctor (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Of course nominators get a vote. And just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you as a less experienced editor at all — your experience on Wikipedia is unquestionable. I was just referring to the strength of the arguments in the subsequent votes. I thought giving it another week might attract some more substantive input before the discussion is closed. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:52, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Television in Senegal#Main channels as an WP:ATD. Found this source, but nothing more. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comment on suggested redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Emmanuel Seun Oyeleke

Emmanuel Seun Oyeleke (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)

Promotional bio. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Kqol • talk 21:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think this is wrong and the Bio should stand as it was written from a neutral point of view. I think you should reconsider it. I as the author has never met Emmanuel Seun Oyeleke or have a conversation. I admire his work as a photographer which he is and so decided to wroite the article OgboloThe12 (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep

The subject easily passes [[WP:GNG] based on multiple independent, reliable, and deeply substantive secondary sources. I have highlighted the three strongest references below to demonstrate compliance:

Source 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20260421200805/https://de.canon.ch/pro/ambassadors/emmanuel-oyeleke/ "Emmanuel Oyeleke" An Article published by Canon that gives a run down into who Emmanuel Seun Oyeleke is as a photography Ambassador.

Source 2: https://businessofphotography.net/photographer-extraordinaire-emmanuel-oyeleke/ "PHOTOGRAPHER EXTRAORDINAIRE: EMMANUEL OYELEKE" Featured Editorial, Business Of Photography, Written by a top and leading editor Ibukunoluwa Adekunle to showcase the art and tell about Emmanuel Seun Oyeleke.

Source 3: https://independent.ng/archery-nafed-appoints-oyeleke-as-director-of-marketing/ "News," Independent Newspapers . A highly reliable, international secondary source that provides independent, sustained news and information over time.

@Kqol @Shellwood OgboloThe12 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep page OgboloThe12 (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep The Article

Looking at it, it meets the standard procedures and guideline for Wikipedia Article Creation. But if there is something you will want me to improve on you can state it and i will work on it. OgboloThe12 (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate bold !votes struck _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@OgboloThe12, Only one !vote please.

The Canon page is his sponsor's own profile, the Business of Photography piece is a short trade write-up, and the Independent report is a routine appointment notice. None of it is significant independent coverage WP:BASIC.Kqol • talk 21:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

So what do you advice as to what he should do to improve the Article ~2026-50078-96 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kqol to make the article better what do you advise i do at this point? OgboloThe12 (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@OgboloThe12 It isn't something rewriting can fix: notability depends on sources, not on the article text. What's needed is reliable, independent sources that discuss him in depth, not interviews, press releases, award lists or pages from his sponsors or clubs. Kqol • talk 20:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the source analysis by Kqol. The Business of Photography may also be unreliable. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Keep The author did not do a particularly good job of defending the article's inclusion, but the at-least half dozen sources (both specific to Oyeleke and discussing him in a broader context) from multiple high-profile Nigerian publications (The Guardian, BusinessDay, etc.) covering the individual in depth show a clear GNG pass.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps a full source assessment table would help?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Transport in Sydney in the 2010s

Transport in Sydney in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article isn't about a single topic. It is a group of topics that are already (or should already) be covered on other pages, and are only linked together by happening in the same decade in Sydney. Steelkamp (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Due to the large amount of developments that occurred during this decade and the demonstrated notability within the article, I don't think it would be prudent to delete this article. This article is also in need of a thorough update though because some projects display dates that have already passed. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• I've always thought that this article was arbitrary to have, what separates a transport infrastructure project or other development in 2010–2019 from one in 2001, 2021 or 1974? Transport in Sydney is not that long to justify a WP:SIZESPLIT at only 2089 words, but this one is 4820 words. Are there sources stating that the 2010s were some sort of golden age of transport in Sydney? Fork99 (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  There doesn't appear to be any obvious Wikipedia:Recentism issues, but this is a possible concern as well. Fork99 (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Come to think of it, a better argument for deletion would be that the sources don't actually discuss "Transport in Sydney in the 2010s", they discuss individual components of it, which all have their own articles. Steelkamp (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  I did notice that the creator is blocked for sockpuppetry but I can't tell from the blocking admin's summary if they're a sockpuppet or the sockmaster. Either way though, this can't be WP:G5ed because of substantive edits made by others since then. Fork99 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This article covers a large range of topics but with minimal detail. All it's content is already presented in more depth in the dedicated pages including Light rail in Sydney, NorthConnex, Rail Clearways Program, Sydney Metro and many others. It also details a lot of pre 2010 information which just proves you can't slice a topic by timeline. Teraplane (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I think Teraplane presents a strong argument. Content is covered in individual articles. No specific source about the 2010s. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep This article could provide a decent overview of the transport if taken care of. However no other articles exist about the 2000’s or 1990’s. Still could make those articles… TheEpicEgg56 05:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the arguments presented by @Qwerty123M combined with the fact that the issues raised by the delete votes largely center on content concerns. There needs to be a significant improvement in the article's expression of its central thesis (i.e the line of reasoning argued by Qwerty needs to be far more apparent throughout), but that's a content concern, which doesn't affect its notability per WP:CONTN. We might look for a source that specifically indicates that a great deal of development in the transport industry took place during that decade. I would be shocked if there weren't at least 5-10 pieces from the Morning Herald indicating exactly that, both recently and over the course of that period more broadly.

CSGinger14 (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald articles are mostly protected by a paywall. So if cited they will not be visible to many Wikipedia readers. Above comments show that much of the article is outdated or lacking details. It's nice to suggest it be improved. But given it's revision history over the years, this is unlikely to occur. Dedicated articles on trains, metro etc are much better maintained. Teraplane (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I've got no comment on this !vote other than that citing paywalled sources doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Fork99 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, or at best Selective merge to Transport in Sydney and subsidiary articles. Much of this content fails NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and specifically it is the time-limited material that does so: for example, "The tunnel will provide an alternative to Pennant Hills Road. In 2013 National Roads and Motorists' Association members identified Pennant Hills Road as the third worst road in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory" has no obvious encyclopedic value, and it's placement in an article about transport in Sydney in the 2010s is original research. The topic of transport in Sydney, and its subunits, is obviously notable, but we have articles for those. I see no argument for a time-limited article, nor any evidence of due weight concerns created by minor mergers (I haven't evaluated all the potential targets for mergers to check whether the content is already present and DUE). Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some participants have considered some kind merge if understanding correctly?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Occidental and Vanguard

Occidental and Vanguard (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)

Newspaper is not notable. Publication only lasted a few years and did not establish notability in that time. Article currently has one source. Couldn't find anything in a quick Google search. Found some sources found on Newspapers.com but nothing unique enough to warrant an article. Could be merged into Zachariah Montgomery Eric Schucht (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and California. Eric Schucht (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Winwin

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

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

I propose draftifying because doesn't sufficiently prove separate notability from band via WP:NBANDMEMBER. Coverage is basically all about them int he content of the band; only separate activiity is participating in a few TV shows, but previous consensus on wikiproject was that this doesn't count to separate notability. grapesurgeon (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, China, and South Korea. grapesurgeon (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: If the topic is non-notable, what is the justification for draftification, as opposed to outright deletion? Sycerion (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Kevin Buchanan (attorney)

Kevin Buchanan (attorney) (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)

Kevin Buchanan is a former district attorney of Washington and Nowata Counties, Oklahoma. Those counties have a combined population of only about 65,000.

The notability guidelines for government officials say, "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline".

Kevin Buchanan is a former local elected official of a relatively small local area. There is nothing in this article that indicates that Mr. Buchanan meets the general notability guideline. The only other content in this article says that Mr. Buchanan is a member of the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, but the article gives no indication of why this would establish notability either. IGAEB (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Plus, the article's creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ValkyrieV/Archive. IGAEB (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Oklahoma. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Jay-Wiki (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Categories

Category:Disney core universe characters

• Propose renaming Category:Disney core universe characters to Category:Mickey Mouse universe characters

Nominator's rationale: More accurate name given the characters included in the category. "Disney core universe" is not well-defined given how the company also sees Disney Princesses and the other feature films as their core properties. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

South Downs artists

• Propose renaming Category:South Downs artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Artists from the South Downs
• Propose renaming Category:Rother Valley artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Artists from Rother Valley

Nominator's rationale: Would be in line with Category:English artists by county. Note that there are no other categories related to either of these geographical locations though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Disperse to county categories. South Downs and Rother Valley are not counties. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Category:Corendon Kinheim players

• Propose renaming Category:Corendon Kinheim players to Category:Kinheim players

Nominator's rationale: Removing outdated sponsor for a baseball team's player categories. (Not all players listed played for the team,Kinheim, during this sponsorship. HonkBase (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Category:Trichy railway division

• Propose renaming Category:Trichy railway division to Category:Tiruchirappalli railway division

Nominator's rationale: Opposed Speedy nomination. The main article Tiruchirappalli railway division has never been at Trichy railway division, nor has a Requested Move for the page been initiated to take it there. Citations in the railway division article vary between Trichy, Tiruchirappalli and Tiruchchirappalli. All other categories within Category:Tiruchirappalli use this spelling. – Fayenatic London 14:59, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Copy of Speedy discussion

• Category:Trichy railway division to Category:Tiruchirappalli railway division – C2D: name correction ~2026-43920-27 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  OBJECT Source used in head article calls it Trichy. Head article should be moved. DuncanHill (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  IMHO the opposition is groundless; the head article in this category is Tiruchirappalli railway division, whose text and citations mainly say Tiruchirappalli rather than Trichy. The article has never been at Trichy railway division and there is not even a redirect at that name. If DuncanHill is referring to the city article Tiruchirappalli, both names are used in citations there, and the long name predominates in the article text. I would process the speedy rename as valid under C2C and C2D despite the oppose !vote. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london: needs to read the very first reference in Tiruchirappalli railway division and then he needs to apologise. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK, I apologise for not guessing which source you were referring to. That source is indeed first, but I trust you can forgive me as the title of that citation does not include any version of the name. There are other sources which call it Trichy in the citation title, but these are newspaper headlines, where the short name is clearly chosen for reasons of space. Other formal sources such as the map (currently citation 17) use Tiruchirappalli or Tiruchchirappalli (double ch). As the head article has long been at this name, I still think this qualifies for C2D, and even more clearly for C2C. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Top tip - the important bits of a citation are in the text, not the title. Oh, and try looking at the article talk page if the name has been questioned - you'll often find useful comments there. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  • @DuncanHill: you'd better start an RM nomination then. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Rename for consistency. (Keep if the article gets renamed to Trichy after an RM nomination.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See RM at Talk:Tiruchirappalli_railway_division#Requested_move_24_September_2026.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename per nom and Marcocapelle. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 16:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: article has now been renamed, following an uncontested RM discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• After the article rename, this category nomination has become moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Redirects

Dated and Related

• Dated and Related → List of Netflix original programming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, and apparently not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia at all. According to third-party search engines, the subject of this redirect represents a reality dating television series that is on Netflix and had one season in 2022. Steel1943 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Sparking Joy with Marie Kondo

• Sparking Joy with Marie Kondo → Tidying Up with Marie Kondo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sparking Joy → List of Netflix original programming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I believe these two redirects refer to the same subject, given that the subject of these redirects refers to a show that is or was or was not on Netflix. Per Tidying Up with Marie Kondo, the subject of these redirects is a sequel or spinoff of the aforementioned article, but after that mention in the lede section, there's no further mention in that article. For these reasons, I believe that Sparking Joy with Marie Kondo should be deleted per WP:REDLINK as potentially notable, and Sparking Joy should be deleted as both not mentioned in its target article and an unlikely partial title match for "Sparking Joy with Marie Kondo". Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

105th Infantry Division "Cosseria II"

• 105th Infantry Division "Cosseria II" → 5th Infantry Division "Cosseria"  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, no evidence this name is associated with the topic. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Want It All (Burna Boy and Polo G song)

• Want It All (Burna Boy and Polo G song) → Burna Boy#Singles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This song is not mentioned in the target article or Polo G. However, this subject is mention in a list of songs in both Burna Boy discography and Polo G discography, but neither one of them have any context for this subject, as well as the fact that there are two potential targets, it is not clear why one target should be preferred over the other. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review

Category:Filipino American sportspeople

Category:Filipino American sportspeople (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Category:American sportspeople of Filipino descent page was a move from Category:Filipino American sportspeople in 2010; it was later deleted.
Category:Jewish American sportspeople, Category:African-American sportspeople, and other ethnic based subcategories exist. Why should one about Filipino Americans be deleted; why should some other ethnicities get a subcategory, but not others? What is the logic of this?
Is it that the current consensus naming scheme is no longer X sportspeople of X ethnicity, but X ethnicity sportspeople, shouldn't Category:Filipino American sportspeople not be restored? RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Endorse close as an accurate reading of consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

So it's OK for some ethnicities to have categories of their athletes, but not others then? RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and speedy close per WP:DRVNOT#6:

  Deletion review should not be used…to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits)

  If the appellant insists on a standard of "consistency", they're completely free to nominate Category:Jewish American sportspeople, Category:African-American sportspeople, and anything else they wish for CfD separately, but that is not a matter for DRV. The solution to having all of the other pages deleted is to nominate them for deletion. Left guide (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
  • We don't speedy close for DRVNOT (except for attacks and historically for copyright infringement). Besides, CFD is its own little world; my understanding is that not identifying similar categories is a defect in the discussion. —Cryptic 03:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
    • CfD is very inconsistent on the matter. Sometimes that is treated as a defect. Other times the missing categories are silently processed through WP:CFDS. Other times for practical matters the other categories are split to a separate discussion and then nobody knows what to do if the outcome is different. In any case I reject the premise that the so-called similar categories are actually similar; a broad ethnicity is different from a county. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)