Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Events|sig=~~~~}} 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

Kačanik fighting (1999)

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

A one-day engagement between Yugoslav forces and the KLA that doesn't seem notable. All the information apparently comes from a likely non-reliable source: Serbian politician Milovan Drecun's book, Drugi kosovski boj, which is self-published. Reference #2 is about a former KLA commander's book, it doesn't discuss the topic. Reference #3 is a statement from Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani, it doesn't discuss the topic. I searched and couldn't find any reliable or extensive news coverage of the fighting. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Griboski (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kosovo, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Military-related AfD discussions. Griboski (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Typhoon Nuri (2014)

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

Copied from talk page on behalf of TA (permalink). Primefac (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

The storm barely had any impacts and any impacts it had can easily be contained in 2014 Pacific typhoon season. I know a past merge proposal into November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone failed, but many expressed it wasn’t notable enough and should just be in the pacific typhoon article. ~2026-53478-79 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Weather and Philippines. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Recommend sock strike for nominator. See WP:LTA/A5. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 00:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Battle of the Al Hira Canal (633)

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

Nominating Battle of the Al Hira Canal (633) for merge into Battle of Hira.

Reason:

overlap: campaign, commanders, belligerents, location, year of event all the same, and battle at canal seems to be an initial confrontation prior to the assault on Al-Hira by its own description, satisfying WP:OVERLAP.
context: article starts amidst the campaign of Khalid ibn Walid in Mesopotamia and lacks context as to what Al-Hira was or when during this campaign took place chronologically or why, much which is provided at Battle of Hira. Thus, content of merge source arguably gains important context as per WP:PAGEDECIDE if merged to Battle of Hira, weakly supporting WP:MERGECON.
improves target: information about an action at the canal prior to the onset of the main battle at Hira arguably improves understanding of the events of the merge target, per WP:MERGECON.
not notable: search of google scholar, google books, and two of JSTOR 1 2 turned up hardly any results which could be conceived of as referring specifically to this event using this nomenclature, with the only possible matches seeming to be copied text found across books over 100 years of age (hence, WP:AGEMATTERS might apply to them, as they may reflect historiographically out-of-date framings), see 1 2 3. Thus, subject almost certainly fails WP:SIGCOV, though I am open to other evidence.
simple battle summary: summary of action is extremely brief and vague, possibly reflecting poor documentation of the event; please note that articles regularly span multi-day battles when not enough can be said about the individual events of one day (and it is in fact rare that enough can be said about an individual day in a battle!).

Comment: Searches for "al-Hira canal" and "Hira canal" hardly provided any results, showing that the location at which this battle took place might not even be recognized "place" in academia. It seems canals there are part of a broader network in Southern Mesopotamia, but I'm struggling to find much indicating they are seen to be uniquely notable. This might escalate the article to WP:OR.

Comment: This suggested merge is written in good faith that the article I am nominated to merge is even valid, because I did not feel like conducting a source review to verify this. However, its author has had two articles deleted as of 3 October 2026 for LLM use (Battle of Damascus (750), Battle of Tall al-Hammam); source article's references should be verified before any merge.

Summary: article Battle of the Al Hira Canal (633) should be merged with Battle of Hira due to its insufficient individual notability and the mutual benefit enjoyed by both topics of a merge.

HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Iwantashawarma and BorysMapping: Notifying as they discussed this issue at Talk:Battle of the Al Hira Canal (633)#Question. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

i won't argue, I've seen the unnecessity of keeping it as a seperate page although it's a prelude, merge it. Iwantashawarma (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support. Reasons given by nom check out, and the article qualifies for many reasons to merge. FaviFake (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Indonesia 9–2 Bangladesh

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

More matchcruft, failing WP:NOTNEWS, and which will not have a lasting impact in 10-20 years. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per rationale of nominator. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nom. Drat8sub (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I am also not so hopeful if it will experience lasting coverage. GenuineArt (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete — Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. Just pure WP:RECENTISM. Publicwalrus (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Croatia 0-7 England

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

We usually don't need articles for UEFA Nations League matches, especially matches from this year (outside the 2026 FIFA World Cup final, that's a notable one) with only the match summary as it may fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and violate WP:NOTNEWS as it happened today. This is a group stage match, and the reliable sources (as well as this article) only are match-day reports, which convinces me that maybe this should not be here, or can be optionally redirected to 2026–27 UEFA Nations League A#Group 3. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 19:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Croatia, and England. SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 19:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete with fire, hopelessly in violation of NOTNEWS etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete — Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. Just pure WP:RECENTISM. Publicwalrus (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Article writer seems to have a history of creating articles regarding their favorite teams 'getting revenge' by scoring lots of goals in a rematch, so we've got WP:POINT to consider too. Nathannah • 📮 00:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - big score, that's it, not notable at all. Giant Snowman 17:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Sugababes 2027 UK Tour

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

I propose merging to Draft:Sugababes 2027 UK Tour because the draft was created before this main space article, both with the same title, and is being actively worked on. The content from this article can be merged into the draft before it is made into a main space article. The editor who created this main space article didn't consider the draft or wasn't aware of it.

Edit at 21:46 UTC: For additional clarification about why I want these merged, the tour is not ready to have an article in the main space. The sources currently available all say the same things which are the dates, venues, what the tour is in support of, and basic information about the concept being "up close and personal". The tour does not even have a definite name yet. Keeping it in the draft space for now will allow time for development as more information about the tour becomes available. In regards to my initial reasoning about the other editor creating a main space article when I already created a draft, I am not knowledgeable enough on policies surrounding circumstances like this. However, it is very obvious that this tour doesn't currently have enough independent sources to warrant a main space article, and that the editor who created the main space article directly copied word-for-word prose from Sugababes '25 Tour and Sugababes to fluff out the prose. Zirthes (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment - Looks like a failure of WP:NTOURS, so whatever happens, it's hard to see the justification for a standalone article as an option as is. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Part of the reason I was keeping it as a draft was to wait for more sources to become available. There is also no set list or anything else particularly noteworthy other than the tour being announced and basic details. Like I said I was still working on the draft and this editor who created the main space article disregarded it. Zirthes (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
If your stance is "merge them because they need to stay in the draftspace a while" then I support your stance. If you just plan on publishing in a couple days, then this all feels pointless. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

This seems a bit of a pointless move - there is very little content on the draft and nothing that is not also on the mainspace page. I don't see what would be gained by merging it back in and then moving the draft to mainspace. Surely it would be easier to just abandon the draft and work on the existing article? Andrew Gray (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

The tour is not ready to have an article in the main space yet, however there is some content from the main space article that could be incorporated into the draft. The tour has only just been announced so there are only basic details available currently and it needs to stay as a draft that can be developed over time. Zirthes (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep So you're nominating this for deletion because someone published an article that you couldn’t be bothered to finish? Right. looks like the nominator just wants to be the one who publishes it so they can say they created it! ~2026-53276-09 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Please remember to be WP:CIVIL: I am sure Zirthes meant no harm DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Ironically they actually copied a significant amount of prose from the Sugababes '25 Tour article that I added and put it into this article. Me not being bothered to finish it has nothing to do with it and is also incorrect, I only created the draft yesterday and I planned to work on it until it was ready to be moved to the main space. Zirthes (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep @Zirthes:, I am really sorry that this happened – there have been times when I have been working on an draft in my userspace for ages and then someone has published it beforehand and it sucks. However, Meena should not be blamed for this – it is just an unfortunate coincidence, and it is important to WP:AGF – Drafts are not available on search engines and thus Meena could not have seen it unless she specifically at that specific draft. I also agree with Andrew Gray that it would not be beneficial as the published article has a lot more information. If there is any information you would like to add, I would recommend adding it to this article, and you could work with Meena/other users to expand the article and maybe get it to GA? So then it is productive and has a positive benefit for all 😁 I also think the article meets GNG and NTOUR as it has multiple in depth sources. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
There is no official name for the tour yet, I just went with Sugababes 2027 UK Tour as a working title. So it seems like Meena was aware of the draft as they used exactly the same name. They are also an editor with 50,000 edits and they should know that tours with limited coverage shouldn't have main space articles until wider coverage is available that provides more detail to warrant an article. I am led to believe that they just disregarded the draft, however I am willing to incorporate some of the content from the article they created into the draft which is why I suggested merging. Zirthes (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Zirthes, I don't think you are AGF. If I created this article (which I wouldn't have as I didn't even know they were doing a tour), I would have used the same name – I think the fact you keep saying that they disregarded the draft is rude as you don't have evidence of that. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how me considering content they added to their article and suggesting it should be merged into the draft rather than their work being fully deleted equates to me being rude, if anything I'm actually trying to be considerate. I am mildly frustrated that they created a main space article when I already created a draft and was actively working on it, as anyone would be, especially when they copied prose that I contributed from another article and certain other aspects that are very similar to the draft. If other editors believe it is okay for the main space article to be kept, I would suggest that it should be nominated for deletion as someone else suggested it doesn't meet the criteria at WP:NTOURS. Zirthes (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives said you meant no harm? But the comments stating it should be merged or deleted, im inclined to think you are bitter that someone has got there first and this is not how these discussions work. If you don’t believe it passes WP:NTOURS, WHY are you making a draft for it. I think you should close this discussion and consider putting the work into the other Sugababes tours that don’t have pages and need creating please. ~2026-53218-21 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Just because it doesn't meet it now it doesn't mean it won't eventually.. And they said I was being rude which is what I was responding to with clarification of my intentions. I have already put effort into creating articles for their other tours. Zirthes (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

That sounds to me more of a WP:DRAFTIFY situation rather than a merge. Discokossan (Talk to me ✉) (See what I've done so far ✒) 23:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep So let me get this straight, you want to merge this article with your draft because it was finished before you could finish yours? Unless this is a gross misunderstanding on my part I fail to see this as a valid reason. Discokossan (Talk to me ✉) (See what I've done so far ✒) 20:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids

AfDs for this article:

(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)reply

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)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment/Slight keep Honestly, I just don't like that it's LGBTQ rights in Turkey article. Yes, this is about LGBTQ rights, but this is a very big crackdown on communities, journalists, etc., and it would fit better as an important event. Like in the former nomination, I want to reiterate that adding this to such a broad article may cause it to be minimized. There is also an ongoing crackdown on the major news network T24 under this operation and a discussion in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe about this. I'd recommend keeping this at the moment.

Also, on the language thing, this article has already been adapted as a standalone article in 12 different languages. I don't see how the Turkish Wiki is relevant to this. Every Wiki works independently; we have many articles that are standalone here but not in their native Wiki, unless Turkish Wiki and English Wiki are somehow interconnected. I would be happy to get answers for these, thanks. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep for now and Wait previous nomination was only a week ago, and we should give it some time to see if there will be any WP:LASTING coverage, and other coverage of it as a historical event, and then see if it meets WP:GNG. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Canadian anti-Muslim incident

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. "School receives threatening email" is a WP:ROUTINE occurrence and the sourcing fails to demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED or WP:NEVENT passing coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS website that carries every story. We do not know at this time if there is going to be widespread reactions, sustained coverage and policy shifts. Runmastery (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No sustained coverage for routine event. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Quebec Islamic threat

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. A brief burst of local news coverage about an alleged threat does not demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Further, the sources don't even establish that a crime has been committed, but that it is alleged that it did. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to 2026 in the Islamic State, small event with no lasting effect. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: I agree with the nominator, no significant sustained coverage --TitCrisse (t•c) 00:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC).reply
Delete per nom. This is simply an intelligence report, and we are not archives of such reports. Runmastery (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Torreón school stabbing

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

No indication this passes WP:NEVENT. Coverage is local breaking news, and "one person dies at a school" is not so unusual as an event. Crimes happen - is this a crime that received notability proving coverage? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Schools, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Initially, I was shocked at this nomination, but this appears to fall short of notability criteria 4:

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories", and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

Are there any good merge targets here? SenshiSun (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

List of school attacks in Mexico CornyDude22 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - No evidence of notability. This is a run off the mill stabbing with 1 person unfortunately losing their life, but no evidence that this event will transcend beyond the news. Please ping me if this changes. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Stay - This attack has notoriety, media talked a lot about it, opened a discussion about the tcc community and even the president addressed the attack and said that she would promote a law to make social media review and delete that type of content that idolize mass killers.

In the big panorama this is not notable but most of these attacks are not notable or the notoriety comes time after like for example the CCH sur attack or the UTEG attack that are now notable after being mentioned by other attackers.

So in conclusion this attack is notable, it opened a debate about social media and the tcc community and even the government addressed it Kelsykelsykarter2 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

The Rolling Stones Irish Tour 1965

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

I propose merging to The Rolling Stones 1965 tours because that page already has the same info, with a few extra sources. This is an extra page for no apparent reason. There are also individual pages for every Stones tour that year, so I propose merging those too. These include:

The Rolling Stones Far East Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 1st British Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 1st European Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 2nd European Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 1st American Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 3rd European Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 2nd Irish Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 4th European Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 2nd British Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rolling Stones 2nd American Tour 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support. It's hard to justify much of this content, but even harder to justify content forks for each leg of their 1965 touring schedule. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support all mergers. We don't need to be this granular. SenshiSun (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support all mergers per nominator's rationale. Useless articles. FaviFake (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2007 Enterprise tornado

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

I propose merging to Tornado outbreak of February 28 – March 2, 2007 because this article is clearly a WP:CFORK, as it adds almost no new information (the tornado summary here is somehow shorter than the one in the outbreak article) and could easily be merged into the outbreak article (which also needs expansion) per WP:SIZERULE. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Weather and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment- Could you let me try to expand? With help (though I can manage without), we can get this to B-class (possible GA). WXchaser (^{Say what?}) 23:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
If you know it needs significant expansion, why did you move it to mainspace? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
DRAFTIFY I can improve it from there. I would not like to have to rewrite the entire article. WXchaser (^{Say what?}) 11:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Also, John B123 had just reviewed the article WXchaser (^{Say what?}) 11:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

The outbreak article is still really short, so I don't think a split is warranted. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support - I don't see the need for this being an article when the outbreak article, as mentioned, has a more detailed summary and also the fact the outbreak article could use a ton of updating / expansion as well. Timcigar12 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support - the outbreak article is less than 3,000 words. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

JPMorgan homophobic scandal

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

There's a lot of things wrong here. First and most importantly, Wikipedia is not news and this is clearly a blip in the news. Secondly, the article basically validates the claims of the alleged victim stating that "Brian Larson was [...] fired [...] because of his sexual orientation" whereas WP:NPOV would require something along the lines of "Brian Larson alleges he was fired [...] because of his sexual orientation". Even the article's title is slanted as basically acknowledging that JPMorgan is homophobic (this has not been demonstrated, at least not yet) and that this story raises to the level of a "scandal" which seems an exageration at best. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Just saying NOTNEWS is probably enough of a justification for deletion. we have a whole big "screw you" to NPOV/DUE at the parent article that we can probably merge this article into if we can find out what the "numerous discrimination lawsuits" this article refers to are. m s k 16:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete this particular event does not deserve a page of its own and can be added to the main page of JPMorgan Chase. However if the controversies/allegations section is too large perhaps a separate page can be created for it. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, LGBTQ+ studies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge to the main JP Morgan chase article and the recent history section. Deleting this article is wiping that information entirely. I would be against that especially considering the relevance and importance of the subject. AadamentAardvark (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete the latest in the line of scandal attempt articles created by the article creator. Not news, not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Kharijite Rebellions (684–693)

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

Very poor fork of Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi, made by a user that has a history of creating numerous articles that are also either just forks, non-notable or LLM and were all deleted. Ahmed.Mhdv (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Middle East. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
- Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nomination.HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete or Split: to Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi and Najdat. Article namespace "Khajarite Rebellion (687–693)" is useful and arguably a good WP:REDIRECT to Najdat, or "Najdat" to it, depending on which term better satisfies WP:COMMONNAME[1]. However, article itself is not sufficient in content to merit its distinct status, especially when its content seems well-covered by the other two. Considerable content from Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi might also be worth moving to Najdat.

Note: Contrary to the claims of the nominator, only four of @Iwantahawarma's articles have been deleted as of this post, two of which were removed for alleged LLM use (Battle of Damascus (750), Battle of Tall al-Hammam), one for violating a WP:SANCTIONS (Siege of Kalinjar (1545)), one by nomination (Battle of Shopian (1814)) for poor citation and non-notability. A general review of contributions is merited, but until such a review is completed, it is wrong to say that all of the user's article contributions were forks or LLMs when we do not yet know.

[1]: Yes, "Najdat" technically refers to a follower of Najda and not explicitly to the revolt he led from 687–693; however, given the term does not appear to be otherwise used, they are possible to associate as topic headings. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nom. In this case, there's nothing to split though no issue with redirect proposal. Note: this was brought by nom for my opinion and I recommended deletion. Al Ameer (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Poorly written POVFORK. Segaton (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

October 2015 Colorado Springs shooting

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

The sources within the article are all within days of the attack, but looking beyond the article the best I can find supporting notability are these sources: In the Boston Herald piece, the shooting is listed among other clearly more notable attacks, but it also happened just under a month before the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, which the article is about. The Fox 21 and Denver Post sources provided an update on the four CSPD officers being cleared of wrongdoing in their response to the attack. It is possible that I'm struggling to find sources to support it meeting WP:EVENTCRIT. I would lean towards it passing WP:LASTING if it had been mentioned again in other retrospective articles (like the Boston Herald piece) following other attacks, but I was unable to find any. The Fox 21 and Denver Post sources might seem WP:INDEPTH at first, but they are mostly retelling what older sources (the ones that were written in the days after the attack) already said. Raskuly 🐰 16:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Colorado. Raskuly 🐰 16:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Murder of Linda Smith

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS; All of the sources in the articles are news. Also, when I searched it up, I found mostly news. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 21:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep, coverage has remained for over 60 years after event. It is also listed on the List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom (before 1970). Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Case is noteworthy, and has been covered by authors in book format. Does need a little more work though..--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. all of the sources in the articles are news are you trying to imply that newspapers aren't reliable or otherwise notability-establishing? I would advise you to re-read that policy, and what it applies to. m s k 22:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - New articles can been improved. Subject has been covered over the decades so there is enduring notability. The references that are newspapers are reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS may have been misinterpreted here. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't think WP:NOTNEWS really applies here. This wasn't just a briefly reported crime that disappeared from the news cycle. The case was covered when it happened in 1961, then revisited again decades later by the BBC and other sources, including around the 60th anniversary. There's also a book specifically about the case. That kind of long-term coverage is a good sign of lasting notability under WP:NEVENT. The article could use better sourcing, but that seems like a reason to improve it rather than delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-52524-15 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Jarosław church stabbing

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

This may fail WP:NEVENT. The aftermath coverage is too short, which convinces me that this stabbing attack isn't notable, even though it happened only 5 days ago. I was still able to find a variety of sources in a WP:BEFORE search (AP, OSV News, etc.), but maybe just let the Polish users complete the article as in-depth coverage is too new to even meet the notability guidelines for events. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 21:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Poland. SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 21:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify per nom; it doesn't feel like it'll get lasting coverage, however I nor any other Wikipedians I know of are prescient so move it to draftspace for now. m s k 22:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify - An attack by a Ukrainian in Poland may make it somewhat notable and cause some opposition to Ukranian refugees, but that is not clear as of now so draftify. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify. An attack on a house of worship has a better chance of being notable but there's not enough there yet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2028 United States attorney general elections

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

WP:TOOSOON, there has been no coverage that I can find on 2028 Attorney General elections in the US. We are not even past the 2026 elections so it makes sense that people have not began looking at downballot races for 2028. Propose deleting with no prejudice against recreating after November 2026 when these would possibly start being covered Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify instead, pending more substantial coverage, so it can be worked on. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep I don't see why it may be too soon given we have articles for the 2028 Governor elections and 2030 U.S. Senate Races. Coolxsearcher1414 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Those races are far more relevant and consequential AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify seems to be the right move this can be improved and published when it's actually ready or there's more significant coverage. AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Matt Riddle's Bloodsport

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

Doesn't appear to be notable outside of niche publications. I believe the redirect to Game Changer Wrestling should be restored. Vgbypw (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. Being real here, I made the article mainly to differentiate it from the rest of the series of events under the Bloodsport name. Considering the importance of the inaugural event as it was the start of the entire series of events, that should be enough to keep it. Besides that, reliable sources regarding future events and some that cover this have been published overtime. I will be looking for more sources as if you haven't exactly found out, ESPN even did an article on this event. Also, calling the Wrestling Observer, WrestleView, and Fightful "niche" is giving me indicators that you don't know what you're talking about (seriously though, look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources page). Unknownuser45266 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I am not calling those sources unreliable, but they are still niche sources. Niche sources will cover all sorts of events, even those that aren't notable. For example, soccer niche sources will report on every event related to soccer. This doesn't mean that every event in soccer is notable. Vgbypw (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

To be completely honest here, I would probably suggest also looking into some of the sources listed. Dave Meltzer for example (despite some of his flaws) has worked with various news outlets including Yahoo! Sports, Sports Illustrated, the Oakland Tribune, and The National Sports Daily in addition to his work for the Wrestling Observer. Also, this could also fall under the mixed martial arts category as there was a lot of influence from MMA for the Bloodsport events and even some MMA sources cover it. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep These sources shouldn't be dismissed as "niche" and they establish notability.LM2000 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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

The result was merge to List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–2024) followed by a retitling of that page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

List of United Kingdom by-elections (2024–present)

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

This is a split of text from Next United Kingdom general election with the rationale that there was too much text about by-elections on that page. It has also necessitated a move of text from List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–2024), which was previously called List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present).

My concern here is that this is a massive move to occur without discussion and that the 2010 to present article is not a list article but a much broader topic. In my view, the place for these pen-portraits of individual by elections is not in an article presenting itself as a list. I understand the concern around how much space is taken up by them at Next United Kingdom general election, but if anything, pen portraits of individual by-elections fit even worse on a List article. This will become unwieldy very quickly, and in effect means a permanent change in the format of List of United Kingdom by-elections (yyyy-yyyy) articles going forward, and possibly backward as well. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yeah, sure, I would say the article could be trimmed and/or re-worked, and the timespan could be discussed, but we have List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–2024), List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–2010), List of United Kingdom by-elections (1950–1979), and all other list articles shown at Template:United Kingdom by-elections. Why should by-elections from 2024 onwards not have their own list article too? I do not see any particular reason for outright deletion. Impru20^talk 13:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Most of the content of the article used to form part of what is now 2010-2024, so we are in effect discussing whether splitting that article was necessary.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge back with List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–2024). There's no reason to split the article every new government. Since 2010 is only 16 years. Half the span of List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–2010). ThundorLord (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge back into List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010-2024), for both a small lists. Catfurball (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment There definitely needs to be a merge of the list items back into List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–2024). I would also merge the pen portraits of individual by-elections to Next United Kingdom general election.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Partial merge back and move List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–2024) back to List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) as a result. The latter article is not WP:TOOBIG for a full list since 2010 and the weight of Next United Kingdom general election isn't coming from this short list either. Yes there are splits for these lists, but this is when the lists themselves have grown to large, not when they remain manageable such as at present. If the next election article is too big then content should be trimmed, noting that a MOS:SUMMARY version can already remain at the article given it's a summary of a list item (or at least should be). There is not any need for full paragraph summaries of each election either based on the layout of List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present). Looking at 2024 United Kingdom general election, there is only a brief table of changes since previous election with link to bi-election articles. It's evident that long-term that's all that's needed here. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge to List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–2024) per above. The articles are not long enough to justify the split. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Murder of Asma Sadia Runa

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

First of all, it violates WP:BLPCRIME, since none of the accused have been convicted by a court of law. I can't see it having any lasting effect. The geographical scope is pretty limited, the duration of coverage seems short as well, and there is no diversity of sources, so it probably fails WP:NEVENT as well. — Raihanur (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Edit: I would support a merge with Islamic University, Bangladesh#Incidents... — Raihanur (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Excelse (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Does not appear to be against WP:BLPCRIME as it is not about an individual - conviction is clearly not the criteria. Diversity of sources is clearly evident, multiple independent sources are cited, and thus giving notability of the event. Chhandama (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chhandama (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply

WP:BLP applies to every living person mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, it is not restricted to biographies. The article does not need to be a "biography" for WP:BLPCRIME to apply. And per WP:BLPCRIME, conviction by a court IS tthe threshold for adding any material that suggests a specific non-public figure is suspected of or accused of a crime. And a burst of local media sources covering the same thing over a very short period of time are pretty much just breaking news churn. — Raihanur (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep There is coverage from September 2026 that criticizes how the investigation is conducted. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kwatha Lai Haraoba

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging because I think this is better discussed in the context of Lai Haraoba. A lot of what's here is already covered at Lai Haoraoba or should be covered in Lai Haraoba. PepperBeast (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge according to WP:MERGE. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I merged 3 identical AfD subpages into this discussion per WP:FIXBUNDLE to avoid creating a mess, since the nom's statement was identical, the articles all have a similar length, and the nom was likely unaware of the WP:BUNDLE procedure. Feel free to undo that. FaviFake (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kwatha Lai Haraoba

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging because I think this is better discussed in the context of Lai Haraoba. A lot of what's here is already covered at Lai Haoraoba or should be covered in Lai Haraoba. PepperBeast (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge according to WP:MERGE. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I merged 3 identical AfD subpages into this discussion per WP:FIXBUNDLE to avoid creating a mess, since the nom's statement was identical, the articles all have a similar length, and the nom was likely unaware of the WP:BUNDLE procedure. Feel free to undo that. FaviFake (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kwatha Lai Haraoba

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging because I think this is better discussed in the context of Lai Haraoba. A lot of what's here is already covered at Lai Haoraoba or should be covered in Lai Haraoba. PepperBeast (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge according to WP:MERGE. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I merged 3 identical AfD subpages into this discussion per WP:FIXBUNDLE to avoid creating a mess, since the nom's statement was identical, the articles all have a similar length, and the nom was likely unaware of the WP:BUNDLE procedure. Feel free to undo that. FaviFake (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kwatha Lai Haraoba

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging because I think this is better discussed in the context of Lai Haraoba. A lot of what's here is already covered at Lai Haoraoba or should be covered in Lai Haraoba. PepperBeast (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge according to WP:MERGE. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I merged 3 identical AfD subpages into this discussion per WP:FIXBUNDLE to avoid creating a mess, since the nom's statement was identical, the articles all have a similar length, and the nom was likely unaware of the WP:BUNDLE procedure. Feel free to undo that. FaviFake (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Taste of Asia

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

Minimal sigcov besides primary sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and Canada. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 One-Day Cup final

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose redirecting because, not enough SIGCOV other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails WP:GNG for a standalone article... Vestrian24Bio 13:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England. Vestrian24Bio 13:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: a redirect to 2026 One-Day Cup was indeed the result of the first nomination just last month, and the original creator contested it now that the match has been played. That resolves any TOOSOON issues from last time… but not necessarily any PAGEDECIDE issues. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is enough independent SIGCOV (specifically the Guardian and BBC articles, which go beyond routine game reports) to establish standalone notability for this match. Frank Anchor 15:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect, completely unnecessary and needless split. Geschichte (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep i don't say anything, but it's Ridiculous, cause already enough independent SIGCOV coverage. So don't think need more source. I suggest keep this article, also what's your problem with cricket article other articles like football i saw many articles there are no coverage but still there, but with cricket always delete or redirect, that's reason many wikipedian quit contribution.
Sagarsq (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Vestrian24Bio 16:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

2029 World Athletics Championships

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

I propose draftifying because, WP:TOOSOON for it yet. Other than the hosts, nothing specific to this edition is known yet.. Vestrian24Bio 14:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Sport of athletics, and Kenya. Vestrian24Bio 14:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: As rightly said by nominator, nothing much is known about this future event. It should better be created in 2028. -Dympies (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to World Athletics Championships as a valid WP:ATD Publicwalrus (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator suggested draftifying; as such, "per nom" does not seem to entirely support delete !votes. Thoughts on proposed redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep the event meets notability, contains a decent amount of information and sources compared to other Kenyan stubs. There's no need to delete Renascitur (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: The event has received significant coverage - also as the first World Athletics Championships to be held in Africa. Asteramellus (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Murder of Apratim

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It was just a spike in news, pretty much routine, which is gone in just one day. And of course, no lasting effect... — Raihanur (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article also breaches WP:BLPCRIME by naming murder WP:SUSPECTS before they have been convicted of murder. Because suspects are legally innocent until proven guilty and convicted of the crime, the article shouldn't even have the word murder in the title, as murder cannot be verified beyond reasonable doubt unless there is a conviction. However, the article has some promising content about missing children and child safety in Bangladesh, and I am not averse to an alternative to deletion to preserve that content. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per WP:GNG... Aqsis Bey (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete, does not pass WP:NEVENT. Also, I'm pretty sure this is AI generated or assisted, judging from the prose quality, in its constant appeals to "primary investigations" - a major AI tell. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 06:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Tsarist Russia

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

This recently-created behemoth (32,000+ words! c.f. WP:SIZERULE) duplicates the existing articles on Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire in one article. This seems to be a case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. A quick look at sourcing shows that the topic of "Tsarist Russia" may be notable as a historiographical concept, but not as a WP:DUP/WP:OVERLAP of existing articles. Possible alternatives to deletion include turning it into a disambiguation page, or draftifying to let the author reformulate it to focus on the historiography. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Royalty and nobility, Asia, Europe, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per WP:CONCEPTDAB. Tsarist Russia is often understood as encompassing a distinct period from the turn of the 16th century to the Russian Revolution, and so readers are likely to be searching for a broad overview article instead of two articles, especially where the distinction (for uninformed readers) may not be clear. This article is about the specific state of Russia under the tsarist model from around 1480 (including the latter years of the Grand Duchy of Moscow) to 1917 and how that specific model of governance shaped Russian society, politics, and governance. It's an analysis of the broader trends present throughout that period which is treated as such in both colloquial and academic thought; it is not just a paraphrased combination of the two articles which focus more in depth on their specific periods. Henceforth, it's not a redundant fork, or even a fork at all since it has a different scope.

The Muscovy, Tsardom, and Empire articles can exist as separate daughter articles that analyze late medieval Russia and the foundations of the Tsarist state, post-Ivan the Terrible but pre-Petrine Russia, and post-Petrine, European integrated, westernized Russia up until Kerensky. A similar comparison could be how Prussia exists alongside Ducal Prussia, Kingdom of Prussia, and Free State of Prussia, or Kingdom of France alongside France in the Middle Ages and Early Modern France.

I am open however to splitting out some of parts of the article into separate parts; it's a long article that took me months to write. This should be done by moving some of the ____ in the Russian Empire articles to ____ in Tsarist Russia. This opens up to another reason why I created this, which is that the lack of mother article has caused scopes amongst some of these articles to be limited to the post-Petrine period when they should be better served by a broader analysis of their topic throughout Tsarist Russia. However, that's a content issue that can be resolved via normal processes and shouldn't be brought up at AFD. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep especially if there's an editor willing to do significant work on it. But as admitted in the nomination the sourcing provides conceptual significance and variety. Any overlapping material should be cut down. AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify. I share the nom's concerns. For example, the article is currently up for DYk, but why is it more correct to say, as the proposed blurb does, "Tsarist Russia was feared to become 'Genghis Khan with a telegraph'" rather than "the Russian Empire was feared to became..."? I see competing rather than complementing articles. Srnec (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment. I agree with the concerns raised above. For example, "Muscovite Russia" refers to the period of Russian history from about 1500 to 1700 (when Moscow was the center) but I do not think it would make sense to create a new country article. We already have tsarist autocracy that covers the tsarist model from 1547 to 1917. It might be best to draftify for now. Mellk (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify per above. The content of this article can and should be covered in other articles that already exist. Regarding comparisons with Prussia and France, we already have articles on other states that existed on the territory of Russia, such as the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. What this article tries to do is unify Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire into a single page. This effective merge is also not supported by the sources, as they mostly do not cover the whole 1547-1917 period together. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
as they mostly do not cover the whole 1547-1917 period together

This isn't true? Loads of sources cover the 1547 to 1917 period together (a cursory search brings these up , , , , , ). The Tsardom and Imperial eras are absolutely compared together. Also, the Prussian and Kingdom of France examples are specifically based on iterations of the state coexisting with sub articles (Kingdom of France exists alongside France in the Middle ages and Early modern period, which are the two eras of Royal France). A similar argument could be made with Prussia given that a region called Prussia still exists today. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 23:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Surely, some sources cover this time period, but mostly they don't, I just skimmed through the references used in the article. French articles read like splitouts of History of France, not as articles about French states. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete as WP:CFORK, we don't need this (and can't accept duplication on this massive scale). No objection to merging some of the content to the existing articles if it's needed (fills in worthwhile gaps) and reliably cited. Making it a draft just kicks the can down the road, to where it will still be way too big and way too overlapping, on a subject that appears to be a WP:SYNTH conflation of Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire as noted above, so there is no point talking about draftifying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:SYNTH refers to the conflation of material not directly stated by multiple sources themselves. The concept of Tsarist Russia and of a Russian state and era ranging from the turn of the 16th century to the revolution is well-established in historiography. It's just a correct and direct summary of existing literature. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 23:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong keep per WP:CONCEPTDAB and User:Knightoftheswords281's reasoning. Tsarist Russia is a distinct concept which relates to a period extending from the 16th century to 1917, which is not encompassed by other articles on the various periods of Russian history. It is analogous to Ancien régime. User:Chiswick Chap's claim that this reflects WP:SYNTH is simply not correct. There are libraries of sources which make direct reference to this concept. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
We already have tsarist autocracy. Ancien régime is also not a country article. Mellk (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Tsarist autocracy is a different concept, referring to a system of government. Tsarist Russia need not be a 'country article'. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The author of the article has already stated that it is supposed to be about Russia under the tsarist model. Also, for example, Riasanovsky is cited under terminology, even though he never identified "Tsarist Russia" as a distinct period of Russian history (he identified "Kievan", "Appanage", "Muscovite", "Imperial", and "Soviet Russia").

This seems to be the only source cited that explicitly refers to "Tsarist Russia" as a period of Russian history from 1547 to 1917. It also refers to Soviet Russia as a period of Russian history from 1917 to 1991. Does it make sense create a new article? There are plenty of other terms e.g. "Old Russia", "pre-Petrine Russia", "pre-revolutionary Russia", and so on. Mellk (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per the reasoning offered by others here. This hones in on a particular period of the Russian Tsardom, and the nominator's assertion that "Tsarist Russia" may be notable as a historiographical concept, but not as a WP:DUP/WP:OVERLAP of existing articles doesn't really make much sense, since the former contradicts the logic of the latter.

CSGinger14 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify or Delete It's an interesting idea, but the page right now doesn't really work as a broad concept page. It combines two or so discrete eras of Russian history/government into one hazy notion and doesn't properly abbreviate the sections enough. I don't doubt that there are sources that describe both 1503 Russia (or whatever) and 1903 Russia as "Tsarist Russia", but they're not the same entity. It would be like a page that just combined the Russian Republic + the Russian SFSR as "Communist Russia" or the various French republics as "Republican France". There's probably a version of this that's much shorter and better uses WP:SUMMARY style (and reserves space for the many hatnotes/wikilinks), but this version now doesn't meet the mark. It also makes it more confusing to the lay-reader what's what and when and what the proper terms are. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even "keep" !voters acknowledge this article has problems of overlapping content. Is anyone willing to WP:HEY the article to generate a consensus for keep? Alternatively, do the overlapping content problems outweigh the purported notability of this subject as a distinct topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment in response to the concerns raised above, I'm am going to work on severely trimming and restructuring the article in the next few days. Hold tight. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Sangareddy Municipal Council election

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

I propose merging to 2026 Telangana local elections because, not enough WP:SIGCOV specific to this council, other than the general Telangana elections coverage.. No need for a separate standalone article. Vestrian24Bio 13:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Telangana. Vestrian24Bio 13:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply

There are many UK councils with far fewer voters and minimal media coverage, the sources being mostly government websites. Yet

they still have their own election pages.

2024 Runnymede Borough Council election

2023 Runnymede Borough Council election

2023 Ribble Valley Borough Council election

2023 Rutland County Council election

2023 Oadby and Wigston Borough Council election

In fact these go even further in detail by showing the number of votes for all the candidates in each ward, not just the top 2. They have similar or fewer voters in each ward.

These towns are also far less prominent in England than Sangareddy is in Telangana. It is a district capital. Ok123l (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Ok123l: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Vestrian24Bio 16:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL, comparing articles of the exact same nature is valid when establishing global consistency. I quote:

"In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

Ok123l (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Ok123l: Notability is not decided based on the number of voters or a place's significance. Instead it's decided based on the amount of in-depth coverage on independent reliable sources. The elections that you yourself listed above all have such coverage from media such as BBC. But, for Sangareddy, all of the sources are general sources about the Telangana elections and not specific to Sangareddy elections. Thus, it fails Wikipedia's inclusion criteria to have a standalone article. Vestrian24Bio 13:39, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge per nom. On other examples shown above, it is my opinion that these would not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:LASTING, WP:SUSTAINED to constitute their own stand-alone articles either (on OTHERSTUFFGENERAL, that would more likely be a case of "Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it", but that is a larger problem of UK local election coverage in the en.wiki (as these articles seem to be created almost automatically by users without actual considerations on SIGCOV) that cannot be properly addressed individually. Impru20^talk 11:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment When we say merge here, do we really mean merge or effectively redirect with only a few sentences from the source page actually kept? Cause oftentimes it seems as though the latter's what ends up actually happening.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

International Workers' Day

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

So, there was a previous discussion on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour Day that got quite messy and complex. I believe it was prematurely closed and that no consensus had been reached. I reached out to the closer about these concerns, and they suggested that a fresh discussion rather than a reopening of the previous discussion would be better, so as to more productively provoke a consensus.

The closer also made a good point when I reached out in that Labor Day and Labour Day (Canada) were not bundled into the original nomination, even though they were also connected to it, and it meant that editors who have those articles on their watchlist may have missed the discussion and not had the opportunity to participate in it. As a result, those articles are being bundled into this one.

The previous discussion originally proposed merging Labour Day into International Workers' Day on the basis of WP:OVERLAP and the two articles having duplicate content. The first few votes agreed with this. However, in later comments, some of us opposed the merge on the basis that it was just some of the content in the articles that was duplicate and overlapped. We believed that the subjects themselves were actually distinct and separate enough that WP:OVERLAP does not apply and that they need their own articles due to being different topics that aren't closely related enough to be accurately described by one article. We instead said that the articles should be rewritten to remove duplication and clarify that they are distinct topics. Some of us also took exception to the target/direction of the merge being Labour Day to International Workers' Day on the basis that IWD is a specific holiday that occurs on May 1, while Labour Day may be more general in describing multiple closely related holidays that are not part of IWD and do not occur on the same date. After that, most of the votes opposed the merge, and the ones that didn't oppose it instead suggested that the direction of the merge be reversed. As a result the nominator presented some new options for discussion, but the discussion was closed before we had the opportunity to properly discuss and reach a consensus on them.

Despite what the nomination has required me to specify, I am not actually proposing or endorsing any one particular course of action. Instead, what I am proposing is that we have a full discussion to develop a course of action. This is also so that some of the editors who participated in it early on but may not have seen the new options are able to participate in a discussion on them. This is not a simple open-and-shut topic and may require a fair bit of discussion and an extended period of time before closure. Here are some options (which we are not limited to; I will add any others that are suggested):
1. Keep all articles as is, but rewrite them to clarify distinctions
2. The original proposal: Merge Labour Day into International Workers' Day
3. Instead merge International Workers' Day into Labour Day. This seemed to be an emerging preference in the original discussion, and I was starting to be swayed towards favouring it. However, I wasn't entirely convinced on it yet because there may be problems with International Workers' Day being discussed in the Labour Day article. It could produce similar problems to the ones raised about merging it in the opposite direction. It would be good to have some discussion on whether this is the case.
4. An option that wasn't mentioned originally, but that I think could be quite an effective solution to the problems highlighted with the other ones, could be to define Labour Day as the main overarching general article for this topic and have International Workers' Day join Labor Day (which probably needs to be renamed to clarify that it is the US-specific article) and Labour Day (Canada) as articles about specific versions that apply in specific countries. All involved articles would need some rewriting (and perhaps some slight modification to the names) to show the distinction and point to one as the main, overarching article, while the others are specific articles.

Please don't just vote and leave. We may need to discuss a few different areas to be able to reach a consensus on this quite complex topic MangoMan11 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Pinging participants from the original discussion @User:Shushugah @User: Bungle491 @User:MangoMan11 @User:TheLoyalOrder @User:AadamentAardvark @User:FaviFake @User:Minoa @User:Marshelec @User:UnitedStatesian @User:Christian75 @User:4meter4 @User:Mangoe @User:Lynngol @User:Awesome Aasim

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Liberalism, and Politics. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Option 3 International Workers' Day#Origin is written incorrectly and misleadingly. For example "1 May was chosen to be International Workers' Day to commemorate the 1886 Haymarket affair in Chicago" is simply wrong – the date was chosen to support workers rather than this name. "International Workers' Day was formally recognized as an annual event at the International's second congress in 1891." is cited to May Day: A Short History of the International Workers' Holiday, 1886–1986, a book that doesn't mention this term once. This dates to this 2025 edit that improperly removed references to "May Day". A Google Books search suggests the name "International Workers' Day" dates to the 1970s, and it seems clear to me that this name that doesn't need a separate, duplicative article from Labour Day, which is the name of the public holiday observed in most countries (or simply Workers' Day), and the name should reflect that in a single article. Reywas92^Talk 15:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Option 4. Though I think the article names should be workshopped a bit as compared to what nominator said. I think each holiday definitely deserves its own page, hence not 2 or 3, and a separate page that treats the idea of a workers' holiday conceptually and links to all the specific instances (in a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE seems like the best-thought organisation for this content. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Don't merge Labor Day. I don't care that much about the other nuances. But US Labor Day is a different holiday, not just on a different day but with a rather separate political context. As for Option 4, this seems like a DABCONCEPT sort of article, which I'm generally not very fond of but I suppose it could work. I wouldn't think of it as an "overarching general article" though; I think DABCONCEPT is the right way to think of it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Labor Day should be moved to Labor Day (United States), and once redirects are fixed, then Labor Day should redirect to Labour Day. There are plenty of country specific pages that are split, because they are suitably encyclopedic and well sourced. Labor Day is certainly one of them. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I think if Labor Day were you be retargeted, the disambiguation page wouldbe a better target than Labour Day. Reason: as far as I'm aware, no other country other than the US has a holiday called "Labor Day". In all other English speaking countries it would be Labour Day, and other countries have it named in their own languages. WP might translate some of those non-English countries' workers' days as "Labor Day", since ENGVAR permits thus, but that doesn't mean we should Labour Day is also called Labor Day, because it isn't. It's just an idiosynchratic consequence of our guidelines being as they are, and is what it is, but we should not amplify its significance. HierophantOfOmens (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Option 3 then Option 2 I initially proposed #2 as merge proposer, but found the arguments persuasive from people, that the name Labour Day is more succinct. And looking at the views, Labour Day got far more views, despite being wiki-linked only to 15 other language editions in contrast to IWD. In the end, since they are full mergers, I think the final name is a not about content, but the article title, and can be fixed with a page swap. The final content is going to require more effort to fix anyhow. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: There is no doubt in my opinion that there are a number of countries that warrant their own Labour Day article for various reasons, such as the choice of date. But I think that there should be an article to represent the holiday on 1 May, as observed in many countries like France and Zimbabwe. The choice of whether to call the holiday International Workers' Day or Labour Day depends on which name is used more often. I wonder if this Ngram is useful? --Minoa (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: for the closer. In this case, please take care to manually update all merge templates appropriately (without relying solely on XFDcloser) as described in WP:AFD#Merge. FaviFake (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Option 3 then Option 4 I don't have a ton to add other than going with the Labour Day name is just more notable and encompassing. But International Worker's Day should still have its place. Sorry for missing the initial ping. AadamentAardvark (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that if we go with Option 3, then the selected anniversaries for 1 May could state "Labour Day in many countries" (because some countries place Labour Day on a different date). --Minoa (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Option 3 then Option 4. Something needs to be done, we can't keep all these overlapping articles, and this seems like the best proposal. FaviFake (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Option 3 seems like the best option for now. --Enos733 (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

2023 U-12 Baseball World Cup Americas Qualifier

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

All cited sources are non-independent. Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Tagged for notability by Fram. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Mexico, and United States of America. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, non-notable sports for elementary school children. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: I've already add some independent reliable sources. It's pan american championships and qualified event, one of the most important WBSC Continental event. We should be keep it. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts about the post nomination sources added by Stevencocoboy....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Doesn’t meet WP:NSPORTS criteria. MerlinsCodex (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@MerlinsCodex: Can you give me some example? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Yup. Here are the policies : WP:GNG. Although WP:NSPORTS already allows some exceptions on notability, this tournament does not give notability to every event. Baseball is not a global sport, and this is a regional event, and a qualifier at that. WP:BLP also has serious policy considerations regarding the documentation of minors on an on-line resource. Finally Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory service : WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The information is already available on https://www.wbscamericas.org/, no need to duplicate here, I found it on the first google search. MerlinsCodex (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I believe that it's enough for notability. We're difficult give notability to every event but it doesn't mean we can't have a page in here. Also Baseball are a part of olympic games event, it's a global sport and this is pan american championships and qualified event, one of the most important WBSC Continental event. We should be keep in here. Although we can found all results in website, but we can still have a page because the other sport event results have already available in website, but we can have a page in here. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

U12 is not notable just because baseball is notable. Geschichte (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

It doesn't make sense, many sport event at junior or youth level have independent pages. The baseball is a global sport event and a part of olympic games at senior level and a part of world cup at age group level. It's not notable. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

U12 events are trivial and never notable. Rather, it is embarrassing that Wikipedia currently has some U12 articles. Geschichte (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

That's why I've already add some independent reliable sources. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shocksingularity (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Baseball being a global sport doesn't mean an U12 tournament is notable. Nor does " many sport event at junior or youth level have independent pages. " that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It's not regular national season games in professional and college leagues, it's an international event to qualified world cup, one of the major WBSC Continental event and we should keep it. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Proposed deletions