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.
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:
This is a run-of-the-mill event, and hence not notable. These leadership elections happen every two years and there's no reason that this one was anything special. –Muboshgu(talk) 21:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Article demonstrates very little notability and does not meet WP:THREE. It is currently cited by four primary sources and one India Today blurb that has no author and only 90 words in the body, short of WP:100WORDS. While not a reason for deletion, I also think it's worth noting that this article details a very specific event that does not have it's own article for previous years of the Asian Para Games. To avoid giving undue weight, I propose redirecting this article to Athletics at the 2026 Asian Para Games rather than merging. Johnson524 17:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
After a WP:BLAR was contested, I propose a redirect to Christchurch_mosque_shootings_copycat_crimes#Copycat_incidents, where this incident is already mentioned. This minor crime with none killed and one injured fails WP:NEVENT, with no WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond the immediate event and attacker's conviction. Any significance this event has is tied to its status as a minor copycat attack, and for that reason WP:PAGEDECIDE indicates it should be covered at the proposed target page and not on a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Surely then the Eslov school stabbing page should also be deleted, as well as the recent 2026 Sungai Raya school attack as well? I think it at least deserves a page as it was the first of any of the copycats. Chudmaster2000 (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Tornado outbreak of May 15–16, 2025 because I'm fairly certain this doesn't have lasting coverage, but even if it does I'm just not convinced this event needs an article anyways. There really isn't anything here that couldn't be said in the outbreak article (aside from the tornado family bit, but I don't think that is too important). Perhaps I would say otherwise if the tornado summary or aftermath sections are too long to fit in the outbreak article, but they're not at the moment. I feel like this is a similar situation to the (former) 2016 Katie–Wynnewood tornado where the only reason this has an article at all is because of its EF4 rating, and a high rating alone doesn't warrant an article. tetradisulfate 00:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Weather and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Worth noting that, as of this edit of @RangerRus' talk page, the article creator admitted to using LLMs for copy-editing, and was warned against further use of LLMs to those ends at their talk page. (not a vote). HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. It is obvious this was LLM-generated. It is best to delete this from this wonderful website. Aneirinn (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The article, as it stands today, states that the battle for the town of Petrinja began and ended on 4 August 1995. I'm not aware of a reliable NPOV source that supports this. 1995 fighting in and around Petrinja lasted several days, with the city changing hands on 6 August (as described in the Operation Storm article, currently an A-class MILHIST (otherwise a GA) article. The prose of the nominated article, as it stands today, specifies outcomes (possession of the town of Petrinja) diametrically opposite to reliable sources by creating an arbitrarily shortened timeline and thereby a WP:POVFORK of Operation Storm. Tomobe03 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I was thinking about alternatives to deletion, and wondered if the redirect would make sense, so I checked Battle of Petrinja and noticed that that name had been created as a redirect to Petrinja fighting, another weird article by another newbie editor the year prior. This was thoroughly redacted by @Peacemaker67 and then deleted, but could have plausibly been named Battle of Petrinja (1991). Still, it seems a bit like inside baseball, because it doesn't seem likely an average English reader would look up these intricate titles. Trying to search for "Battle of Petrinja" on Google Books gives me 1 single hit. Without the quotes for a strict phrase, there's more, but it seems fairly scattered.
keep Sources provided in the article states when did battle started and ended, and what was the outcome of it so i dont consider this an Contentfork. It definitely has significant coverage in reliable sources and is notable mainly because it is one of the most difficult and bloodiest battle during the Homeland war. Keep per notability. I recommend we rename it to the 'Battle of Petrinja (4, August 1995) as to not be confused with later fighting.
delete - If the article is renamed to Petrinja fighting it would make no difference. The point is there is very scant coverage of fighting in and around Petrinja in August 1995. Scarce sources, if reliable, are fine for inclusion in article say on history of Petrinja, or the 2nd Guards Brigade, but not as the sole basis of a standalone article. The article reads like a POV fork because it implies two battles of/actions in Petrinja, both involving same belligerents - one beginning and ending on 4 August and a separate one on 6 or 5-6 August, each concluding in victory for a different side. Per WP:BLUE three consecutive days of fighting are best interpreted as a single military engagement unless reliable sources and non-fringe coverage say there are two. Balkan Battlegrounds certainly does not, so I cannot interpret the article as anything but POV fork. Tomobe03 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This event fails WP:NEVENT, specifically WP:LASTING. No one was killed or injured, and the perpetrator was sentenced fairly quickly. There were no lasting effects other than upgrades to security, a routine response to a shooting outside a building. Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I originally BLAR'ed this to 2026 West Bank lockdown, where the shooting is already covered, but the author reverted my edit and insists on having two separate articles because we shouldn't "add that level of detail to a background section." I offered to take it to discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Now that the translation is complete, I still feel like this should be covered succinctly in the main article. There's what, a half-dozen sentences about the actual event here? That's not even half of the article size. It should instead be in the background info of the article on the larger phenomenon, which has already affected thousands of times more people than the initial shooting through the mass demolition of Palestinian property and forced displacement of civilians. JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Correction: Coverage of the event now makes up less than one-fourth of the article. JTtheOG (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
A deadly terrorist attack should have an article of its own regardless of how large the fallout was. In fact, the greater the fallout, the more article-worthy it is. Blocky1OOO (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Now that's a pretty silly generalization. Should every deadly attack committed by Israeli settlers in the West Bank get its own article? Those are explicitly ideologically motivated killings too. That would be a couple dozen from this year, I think. A couple hundred last year. JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
You think that there are hundreds of deadly attacks by settlers per year? No wonder you want this article gone. You have no idea what you are talking about and probably should not be making significant editorial decisions on this topic. Blocky1OOO (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Apologies, I did say I think. I just review new articles, and the article was exactly one sentence long when I BLAR'ed it. The UN figure of hundreds of Palestinians killed in the West Bank in 2025 also includes those killed by uniformed forces. Regardless, the article seems bloated for an inflated word count, and content from several sections is repeated (or copied) in both articles. I support a merge as per WP:NOPAGE, as I still think both events can be easily and more succinctly covered in the same article. I don't really mind what it's titled or how it's re-structured, as suggested by Samuelshraga, though you probably have pretty strong opinions on that too. JTtheOG (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: No policy with which I am familiar supports the argument for redirection. There is no question of notability. There is no questions of undue weight. The argument for redirection, if examined carefully, is a justification for terrorism and for erasure. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep or Merge if the target article is rescoped. I agree with the analysis that there is no question of notability of this as an event. I can imagine - and potentially support - a merge to 2026 West Bank lockdown per WP:NOPAGE, but not by framing this subject as "background" to the other. These are two highly related topics, presenting them together could make sense, but not with the implied (and based on nominator's comment above explicit) hierarchy that is proposed. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind how the article is titled or structured, but I do think it can and should be merged. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Tornadoes of 2003 because lacks notability and the section within the yearly summary article is pretty barren. Information from there can fit better in there than having its own article as it fails WP:NOTABILITY. Timcigar12 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Support per nominator Lightbulb Noob (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Support per nominator. Also, there have been no fatalities or injuries in the tornado, so taking into account WP:NTORNADO. Melbourne newspaper The Age is reliable, though, but ref 1 is a database and is not reliable. —SimpleObjects-9ei 🎃 (trick or treat 👻) 22:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Couldn't find enough substantial coverage about the tour. There are several announcements , , with minimum critical coverage. And about supporting acts . —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Another editor found three reviews of some of the shows from this tour (, , ). Happy to withdraw if it is enough to make a good article. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:03, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Happy to withdraw if it is enough to make a good article. – The article doesn't have to be good to exist. Moreover, read WP:BEFORE. You obviously didn't even try to Google. The reviews I found were on the very first page in the Google results. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
See this comment by 4meter4. Why didn't LastJabberwocky read the previous AfD discussion before nominating? --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources given at first AFD. Many critical reviews were provided at the first AFD, so the nominator clearly didn't read the discussion before making this second nomination.4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: for what it's worth, the first nomination from 2024 ended with "no consensus" after those sources were brought up (but if that had not happened, it probably would have been deleted from the looks of things). It wasn't enough to resolve the tag for potential notability failure that has been present since September 2013 (it has been tagged as a potential NEVENT failure since a week after the first nomination closed, but that directly replaced a tag for potential NMUSIC failure). No opinion on any of this. WCQuidditch☎✎ 17:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. This appears to be just one of what should have been a bulk nomination. The nom has listed several other "squads" pages for merging, as well. It doesn't make sense to discuss each indivudally. Suggest merging the discussions before anyone !votes. pburka (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:25, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge - There does not seem to be a reason to keep separate articles when merging this will not make target WP:TOOLONG. Would suggest formatting is changed post merged so that it's an overall squad section with the squad listings in tables side by side rather than each country having a completely separate section. BleachPuffin (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think this crime is notable. Lasting consequences are not demonstrated. Of course the case was reported in press, but this is a routine coverage. --Altenmann>talk 20:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Rather routine crime and no trial has happened, so no one has been found guilty. Both are a long way from criminal notability. Nothing showing sustained coverage, very likely TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, subject is more than notable. It has many reliable sources from major news outlets. Donut Men (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this has reasonable coverage and the case is infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. All news events have "reasonable" coverage in news sources (that makes them "news"). Not all news events have lasting relevance (that makes them "encyclopedic"). WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME specifically discuss the distinction. It is still likely too soon (pre-trial, etc) to determine whether WP:LASTING is met. Also see WP:ITSINTHENEWS. (WP:G4 may also apply; As the article is effectively the same as that covered in the recent deletion discussion. Certainly all the sources are the same and date from the same period.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Barely any recent coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - per NOTNEWS and NCrime, and recent related article deletion. Spleodrach (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think this crime is notable. Lasting consequences are not demonstrated. Of course the case was reported in press, but this is a routine coverage. --Altenmann>talk 22:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, event that is the subject of this AfD has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including sources outside of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Strong Keep, this article about a tragic crime committed against a transgender person is more than notable. It would be transphobic to have this article removed. It's too important for that. Article has many reliable sources. Donut Men (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
It possibly being transphobic if deleted is not a valid keep rationale, but I understand your point (if per above). ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 04:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The victim was employed by a major media company, which means that the subject matter will almost certainly continue to be covered in a significant way. Bearian (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Unsure why this was moved to mainspace. Likely not happening and has not been scheduled so we do not need this as an article Yoblyblob (Talk):) 20:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the first nomination six months ago ended with an unusual "Wait" result–which was interpreted in this case to not be a "keep", but the draftification that was contested (and it did seem to be without any explanation at all) this week. No formal opinion at this time, but I suspect there's little appetite to return this to draftspace at this point no matter what. WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Hi there, I'm the original creator of this article, and I personally am in support of deleting and redirecting this. As we are now less than 12 days from Midterms, the likelality this happen is slim to none. While in the 1st nomination I was indeed in support of keeping it, now I'm in support of deleting this, since it shouldn't have been moved out of the draftspace in the first place, but since it has, we might aswell delete it, since its likely not gonna happen anyways.
Delete, no redirect. As this didn't happen, there is nothing to retain in the proposed target and no reason to have a redirect. - The BushrangerOne ping only 10:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - As of October 24, there was no election decided for the vacancy of this district; the district remains vacant and will likely remain vacant until the swearing in of the 119th Congress, where after the November 3 midterms, a new person will be decided for that district. ~2026-56673-60 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: India and Kerala. Weichan123 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: India and Kerala. Weichan123 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and also does not seem to have been a significant event. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Not notable in any sense. AadamentAardvark (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
A few rather random events (some of them not even during the winter) don't make an article. Nothing is actually being said about the "Asian winter", most parts of Asia aren't even mentioned, things like the "total fatalities" are worthless if they are simply the number of one event, not some actual number from a reliable source. WP:TNT applies here, if the subject is worth an article at all. Fram (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Weather, Lists, and Asia. Fram (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep sources like this explicitly claim 68 people died in Japan alone throughout the winter, and is not an addition of events. This includes 35 in a few week stretch. There are more events that could probably be added. Also, an event doesn’t need to be in meteorological winter to be included. In the 2025-26 North American winter article, we have 5 sections for storms that occurred during the fall. Several events such as the February 2026 cold wave are also not covered but could probably be added. Acriminpis (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
See "other stuff exists" as something to avoid in AFD. If anything, the other articles are just as guilty of SYNTH. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Do any of these sources discuss an Asian winter? That 68 people died in Japan doesn't tell us a lot about the so-called "Asian winter", the source is about winter in Japan. Why do we have an article lumping these things together? Looking for sources about the "Asian winter" give either the Asian Winter Games, or the East Asian winter monsoon. Sources don't seem to be interested in discussing a continent-wide winter season for Asia, so why should we? If the Japanese winter was notable, write an article about the Japanese winter. Fram (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Quite different "winters" between Japan and Saudi Arabia, between Himalaya and the Borneo rainforest. Only highlights that Asia can never be the scope of such an article. Geschichte (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:COATRACK, all of the sources in the article are about individual weather events and not about the winter across Asia. WP:OR as well. As for the sources found by Acriminpis, same...they're about individual snow events in Japan, not the winter across Asia (and anyway, how many weather-related deaths are there in a typical winter in a country the size of Japan? I'm guessing 68 is pretty typical). The articles about the 2023-24 and 2024-25 winters can be deleted as well, for the same reasons. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: This is SYNTH. Winter things happened in a particular area of the planet, with little to connect them... Snow in one country, then in another a month later. That's what you'd expect in winter. This wasn't a massive weather event that happened over a large portion of the planet; this is more of a narrative of things that happened in winter. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Neutral - I created it because I didn't want Asia to be excluded when there are continental winter articles for both Europe and North America, and I thought others would help expand it into a more thorough article (much like 2025-26 North American winter). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Neutral: I don't know what to think. Hurricane Jacob (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
User:Hduensixojnrwjzz proposes merging to Flamingo Revolution because "It seems like the main flamingo Revolution page essentially covers all of the stuff written here, this page isnt frequently updated so I’d suggest to merge to the main page." I am just mechanically setting up the discussion and tagging on their behalf. DMacks (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Hey mates! Yeah, the October 2026 section of the Flamingo Revolution article does cover these riots, but I specifically made them short so they could be covered more in this article. Either way, I don’t have a problem with merging this page, but any extra information should be transferred over to the Flamingo Revolution article. PancakeGuy20 (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, the protests are different from the original Flamingo Revolution. JustAnAlbo (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Since it's part of an escalation of a much larger protest, it makes more sense for it to be in one article. Although I'd personally avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL, in the long run it looks like it's gonna be more coherent to understand this as part of the Flamingo Revolution rather than spinning it off into its own article. My only concern about merging the two is how large the main article might become, but the current §October 2026 section is describing it pretty well in my opinion. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 11:26, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree MuhBuhJah (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging as a sentence into Old_Louisville#Culture - no real indication of notability as a festival. I see lots of sources - but they're all local news promoting the event. qcne(talk) 20:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge as the original nominator at WP:AFDREQUEST. It's been in a poor state with lots of unsourced and promotional paragraphs for almost 20 years. Digitalfolklorist 20:46, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep — The IIHF U18 World Championship, by its nature, is notable as being one of the two premier international youth ice hockey championships. It being canceled, the only time it has, is a even more notable occurrence Publicwalrus (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Since the event was cancelled, there are no sources that cover the event "in detail" (like WP:SIGCOV requires). If there was some kind of controversy around the cancellation, there would be something more to say. Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge rather than delete into Lincolnshire Premier League, with a redirect from this title. Although the available sources may not establish sufficient independent significant coverage for a separate article, there is verifiable material about the creation of the successor competition that could be incorporated into the existing article.
The Voice (22 April 2026) reports the merger into a single league pyramid, the reduction of the top division to ten teams, and the consequences for promotion. While the remainder is largely match reporting, these opening paragraphs provide coverage of the reorganisation itself.
A clearly labelled section covering the 2026 restructuring would preserve this information while distinguishing the former league from its successor. I therefore propose a merger and redirect as an alternative to deletion under WP. Diatu (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – The assertion that the league receives only routine coverage overlooks substantive reporting about the organisation itself. In particular:
John Fuller’s “A new era for the Huddersfield Premier Cricket League” (Cricket Yorkshire, 8 January 2025) provides extended discussion of the league’s position within Yorkshire cricket, its transition to ECB Premier League status, governance and facilities requirements, and implications for player registration and regional competition. This is analysis of the league as an institution, rather than a match report or results summary.
Fuller’s earlier “Huddersfield Cricket League: tradition, technology and transfers” (Cricket Yorkshire, 21 April 2018) also discusses the league’s history, structure and decision to remain outside the then-existing Yorkshire league pyramid, although parts of that article are routine season-preview material.
The first two sources provide substantial coverage in publications separate from the league, addressing its organisation and development rather than simply recording sporting results. Taken together, I consider these sufficient to support a case under WP.
The league’s age and ECB status are relevant context, but my argument does not depend on either automatically conferring notability. It rests on the available substantive coverage. These sources can support an expanded account of the league’s development and organisation, so improving the article’s sourcing and prose is preferable to deletion. Diatu (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
As a site primarily covering cricket related stuff Cricket Yorkshire isn't an independent source for this case. Vestrian24Bio 16:28, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
What? Writing articles about cricket doesn’t mean they’re secretly funded by John Cricket himself. ~2026-57294-94 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
'''Keep''' – I disagree with the characterisation that the available coverage is entirely routine. Andy Donley’s feature in ''Mancunian Matters'', published on 13 April 2016, addresses the league directly and in considerable detail. It examines its formation, the restructuring of existing local competitions, its promotion and relegation structure, and the participation and player-development objectives behind its establishment. This goes beyond routine reporting of fixtures, results or individual matches and is relevant to [[WP]].
The article was published by a news outlet separate from the league and is a bylined journalistic feature, although it draws substantially on an interview with the league chairman. It should therefore be assessed on its editorial independence and substantive content, rather than dismissed as routine sports coverage.
I favour retaining and improving the article. Under [[WP]], the assessment should consider the suitable sources available, rather than only the current state of the article’s referencing. Diatu (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. The last nom got sidetracked by a LTA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep: As far as notability, there is more sourcing than a repeat of several of the same. It was the first Pacific hurricane penetrated by a Hurricane Hunters aircraft. That does add an element of being "worthy of notice". Not opposed to merging into 1973 Pacific hurricane season. Sometimes splitting an article is beneficial when there is absolute notability. Merging into the parent article would enhance that article. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep, subject of AfD has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and has been mentioned multiple times since 1973 in reliable sources as a bench mark hurricane to compare other hurricanes against.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I see that the article could be included in 2026 French fuel protests, 2026 French student protests, and 2026 European unrest. However I do think this is a very notable event and that it would be not be unuseful for a more detailed article about the riots as it is a major development that the articles speak of as if it were a distinct event. That day was uniquely destructive with many more lootings, over 800,000 participants, thousands of people arrested and injured, and historic monuments including the Monument to the Republic and Hôtel de Ville of Limoges getting attacked. It also notes a big shift in the French government's approach to the protests, with Macron condemning the protests and calling for a crackdown because of it. I'd give it a bit of time. OrdinariusFingius (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I also see that the frwiki already has a substantial page about the happenings across the entire country. A comprehensive nationwide focus which would otherwise be too big for the other articles would perfectly fit for this OrdinariusFingius (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. Maybe the lead of 2026 European unrest should mention 17 October and explain its importance to the subject. MrCryptoNerd (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Support A lot of media coverage I see, which usually makes a topic qualified for a having an article. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Major outlets cover 17 October as a distinct event like Reuters, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and France 24. XINLU168 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and comment (per logic of @OrdinariusFingius) with additional comment;
I would support merger to 2026 French student protests or, if it is merged with 2026 French fuel protests, to the resulting article. These riots are a closer subset of the French protests than the broader multinational unrest. It makes no sense to merge this whole thing into an article covering something international. However, were that question before us a mention could be made in some manner akin to what @MrCryptoNerd proposed. Finfixer (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment:Skimel has moved the page (in violation of WP:EDITAFD). The XFDcloser script likely won't work correctly, the closer should double check the diffs. FaviFake (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello @FaviFake, I'm sorry for the disruption, I renamed it in good faith and was not aware of theses guidelines. Skimel (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@Skimel Don't worry! You can help by changing every instance of the old article on this discussion into the new name (except in other's comments). This should make XFDcloser work correctly. FaviFake (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. This is not notable enough to satisfy WP:NEVENTFaviFake (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Detail, Italian and Belgian riots. These should be merged to 2026 European unrest, 2026 Italian unrest, because (taking in good faith that what has been added to the article represents a more or less complete overview of each subject) they satisfy:
WP:MERGENOT: topic fails WP:NEVENT[1] and does not seem notable for other reasons.
WP:MERGECON: currently just drops the reader into the riots without explanation of their backgrounds; any explanation would simply run into WP:OVERLAP of the subjects elsewhere without much else new to say.
WP:SHORTTEXT: entries, especially on Italy, are tiny, and merge would not cause much sub-topic overwhelm; at risk of WP:CRYSTALBALL, subjects, especially of Italy section, seem to be routine part of civil unrest without independent notability[1], and so are unlikely to be expanded on unless part of what would merit a new article setup.
WP:OVERLAP: Subject is presented as another day in a multi-day event covered at the target.
There is currently no article 2026 Belgian unrest to perform the merge to, even though this would be better for the Belgian material.
Detail, French riots. These should not be merged (yet) because:
WP:MERGENOT: topic arguably passes WP:NEVENT because they involve a large scale of rioters and the destruction of historic buildings (WP:EFFECT); have significant WP:COVERAGE; and elicited direct international response (WP:GEOSCOPE).
WP:MERGECON: either of the three merge targets could probably provide context, but the national level concerns of this subject probably mean that France-specific targets would be best-suited to introducing the relevant actors and their specific concerns.
WP:SHORTTEXT: merging these materials with 2026 European unrest#France would probably double the size of that section to contain the contents of one day's events; and it is entirely possible (at risk of violating WP:CRYSTALBALL) that this material could still be expanded upon.
WP:OVERLAP: further context relating to the French riots would probably have to go into detail about the French political actors as explained in WP:MERGECON, making overlap with the France-specific articles likely to become the most substantive.
Procedure: as I've argued, I think that a France-related article is a better as a target; but neither is currently eligible due to an active merge discussion between 2026 French student protests and 2026 French fuel protests; and we do not have material demonstrating the riots are "really" part of one or the other to justify a specific merge target.
[1]: Belgium being the more substantial of the two with 195 arrests claimed in article; however, Italy with "50 demonstrators" being unruly and stones thrown at police/barricades attacked seems to obviously fail WP:NEVENT for now, due to no WP:LASTING effect (remember: we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL), limited WP:GEOSCOPE unless tied to something else, pitiful WP:DEPTH, and no way to verify WP:PERSISTENCE as of yet, but no way to be confident in it either, given it's a single day's events involving just 50 people and a Milanese shopping arcade, and some people throwing stones in another city. Remember, WP:NOTNEWS. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Support merge This is a synthesis of separate protest events that happened to be on the same day. The different countries' events should be covered in their respective articles, no need for this duplicative split page. Reywas92Talk 02:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
keep I'd believe it to be a notable enough singular riot since 500000 took part in it, protestors and rioters included, aswell as deaths occuring. Tomas Guus (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment If it is kept, a choice must be made: either it's about the whole protest (as it was the case at some point), and you then can mention the 500000 or 800000 protestors, or the article is strictly about the riots, and then you need to find other figures. Some préfectures gave estimates of rioters (example: 200 rioters («casseurs») for 1500 protestors in Valence), but I'm not aware of any national estimates. Making the article about the riots also raises the question of what happens to the parts about the peaceful protests and the political message they were carrying, which despite what the regime says, are substential. — Maxlath (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Support merge - along with fuel protests into 2026 French student protests and change the name to something more generic. Comment - This article was renamed "protests" yesterday even though I think the reason it was split out was to segregate the riots from the protests. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I think re-renaming it to riots was a mistake, see my comment above, and in the talk page — Maxlath (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep It is substantial enough to have its own article. Merging it would cause confusion and cluttering. Rager7 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Support, per above and per the fact that the article in its current form is a WP:COATRACK that seeks to look like something by discussing tangential subjects like the situation in Albania or Italy tho it has nothing to do with the 17th of October specifically. Milk'n'Thyme 05:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep as WP:PAGEDECIDE indicates that since the nature of coverage and the fundamental character of the event has changed considerably since these riots started, it would seriously disrupt the attempt to establish a central context for the broader protest movement were it to be moved to the destination article. This is even more pertinent given the fact that the riots have continued past the 17th, meaning that we've seen a fundamental rupture in the character of events on the ground that would warrant independent discussion. I don't disagree that it should be discussed at the target, and link back to it for the same reasons, but don't see there being much benefit to characterizing the protests in their entirety as something that they effectively weren't up until the 17th.
My comments at the merge discussion for the fuel protests have already touched on the fact that, at the very least, one major platform has indicated that those who took part in the riots were broadly not operating under the same banner (or, at the very least, with the same intentions) as the wider protest movement, thus it would be an NPOV violation to attempt to implicitly or explicitly equate the two as stemming from the same source (particularly given the fact that certain elements of the French government and right-wing have been doing exactly that).
I think it would make more sense to move this title to October 2026 French riots or similar, since I suspect they won't be slowing down for at least the immediate future. Even if they do, there's been enough of an event made out of them that they warrant standalone inclusion.
The Yellow vests are planning more demonstrations on 24 October so this may be necessary OrdinariusFingius (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Just to clarify my opposition is principally to a merge to 2026 French student protests. I'm more ambiguous as relates to the European unrest proposal, but still think it warrants standalone inclusion.
Keep. October 17 happened in France, not in Albania. The date is even becoming an expression of its own by the French media, the population, because the level of violence was absolutely unprecedented. These French riots had been featured internationally (even by the NY Post) as such, not as an Albanian or European movement, but as a French movement. We can even add French in the title to make it more clear. --Deansfa (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Re, use of term: common use of a term does not necessarily merit an article for the events described by that term. See WP:NEOLOGISM; WP:NOTDICTIONARY. A more substantive argument on term use would be appreciated.
Re, international coverage: assuming this is an argument for WP:NOTABILITY, please review reasons for merging at WP:MERGEREASON, and explain why other factors do not override independent notability of the topic. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Merge The protests/riots have gone well beyond 17 October, so calling it 2026 European unrest is much more appropriate. However, perhaps a slight name change to 2026 European protests and riots? “Unrest” seems very vague and ambiguous. BootsED (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Merge The event is no longer contained to 17 October and is clearly having effect on the whole region.
AP: From France to Albania, how social unrest is fueling protests across Europe
Comment There's a fourth one of these discussions (that I haven't gotten involved in yet) going on somewhere around these articles and I can't remember what it was. Any assistance is appreciated.
Keep: I think that a distinction should be drawn between violent and non-violent actions with the article on riots focusing on the violent and illegal aspects of these events and the equivalent article on unrest having a scope which encloses both the peaceful and political contexts and the violent and illegal aspects of the unrest. Arcchie (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and move to "17 October protests and riots", or something to that effect. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
There's no point in keeping this article if you want to include "protests" here. — Raihanur(talk) 11:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep -- with single-day damages estimated at over a billion euros, there is little argument to be had about notability. This entry will evolve over time once the government's reaction (curfews, banning demonstrations) proves to have been successful or not in keeping the peace. For the time being, the entry should remain here, or be more aptly named October 17 French riots. I would move the page myself right now, except that this AfD makes that impossible (bureaucratic policy).. Encourage a snow close to permit that improvement. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 14:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge, with conditions - As I noted in my edits, the current article has severe issues of factual accuracy, especially regarding France, going as far as contradicting itself in the infobox without any cited sources, citing twice the numbers cited elsewhere in the article.
An increased amount of scrutiny will be given to the evidence if we decide to bring the contents of this article to a larger article with a larger pool of collaborators, helping with the process of verification.
Merging the contents of this article with articles covering the nonviolent side of the protests will lead to more balanced view of the situation, than keeping the article about the protests and the article riots separate; there is significant redundant information between the two, so much so that I believe simply putting information unique to this article under the information from articles about the broader protests would be more informative and complete.
However, I only support this merge should the contents of this article be included as a section of a larger article about the protests as a whole, considering that they 1. Emerged from within the context of the protests, therefore understanding the protests and the background is necessary to understanding the protests and 2. Considering the reported millions of protesters throughout Europe, focusing an article entirely on the reported thousands of rioters would be WP:UNDUE~2026-57490-42 (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 00:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Sensible proposal. Wareon (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@GhostInTheMachine You shouldn't move pages currently at AfD, this will break XFDcloser, see WP:EDITAFD. Please either move the page back, or meticulously update every reference to the old title on this AfD subpage. FaviFake (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete While not labelled as such, this is basically a dab page. It links to two calendars, one for 2026, another for 2027. Neither is notable and soon will be deleted at AfD, there is no encyclopedic or sourced content to merge. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since the future of this page rests heavily on that of Festivals of Thrissur in 2026 and Festivals of Thrissur in 2027, let's revisit this once the two corresponding AfDs have closed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 17:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this has been moved to Canada Super60 and converted to a "general" article on the competition in an attempt to prevent deletion–moving an article during an AfD is highly frowned upon under the best of circumstances. But this is not the best of circumstances, as Canada Super60 itself was deleted at AfD just last year. And that refocus brought in content from Draft:Canada Super60… right on the heels of that very draft being rejected (after previous declines) at AfC earlier today. No formal opinion at this time, but I'm starting to think any and every future deletion of this subject will need to come with some salting, as it seems this is just going to keep coming back year after year otherwise. WCQuidditch☎✎ 16:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. I am also surprised by the article's cut-and-paste text update and page move, just hours after it was nominated. Having said that, the previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Canada Super 60 closed in July as draftify. It is reasonable to assume notability will change in the next few months. It is hence not completely unreasonable for the author of that article (not the same editor as the page mover) to seek broader community input on their revised version, written after the tournament was actually held.
My own reading of the tea leaves is that, while T10 cricket gets short shrift from WP:CRIC as it is widely considered to make a mockery of the game, coverage of the tournament in articles such as The Guardian's "Schrödinger's six, tiny boundaries and the hollow spectacle of ghost-town T10 cricket", The Times's "Is Canada Super 60 cricket’s most ridiculous league?", and The Athletic's "The Canada Super60 turned cricket into a joke. It does the sport no favours" may, ironically, contribute towards meeting WP:N. Though I would like to see additional independent SIGCOV. CBC, the host broadcaster, is clearly non-independent in this context (struck, see below). Preimage (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Being hated is a funny reason for notability, but this event has achieved it. The Times, NYT, Wisden, and The Guardian all give Canada Super 60 significant independent coverage because of how much they dislike it. There's also coverage like India Today. AfD needs to avoid rubber-stamping AfC rejections. Fences&Windows 19:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per the sources identified above, negative coverage is even better as it is unlikely to be covert advertising. I don't think much weight should be put into the history of the article. The first edition of this tournament happened in October 2025, and the page was deleted in September 2025. The draft was handled by two reviewers, one said it was WP:TOOSOON in June 2025, and another reviewer is the current nominator. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 14:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Nominator comment: since the article's scope has changed I'm also adding the following, criticisms have garnered WP:RECENTISM coverage but doesn't seem significant enough to pass the WP:10YEARTEST. Vestrian24Bio 16:13, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I screwed up earlier: CBC was only the host broadcaster for the second season of the competition (announced on August 25, 2026). Hence CBC's Season 1 reporting in 2025 should be considered fully independent. In fact, even if this were not the case, their Feb 14, 2025 and Oct 08, 2025 pieces cited by the article are syndicated from The Canadian Press, which means I should have considered them independent regardless of CBC's status (particularly given they also appeared in paywalled form on TCP's website itself, as well as being republished in regional papers such as the Vancouver Sun, ). We've now found independent reliable SIGCOV for each season, with a mixture of sources covering both (1) a local perspective (broadly supportive), and (2) an international perspective (strongly negative). That looks like a keep to me. Preimage (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Apologies if renaming the article after the AFD was opened was not the proper procedure, but the article as originally nominated was likely to be deleted as it was largely just a collection of unsourced rosters/schedules/stats, and I had rewritten and significantly improved the sourcing of the previously draftified article, so it seemed more constructive to consolidate materials into a single article on the subject to let the broader community assess its merits for inclusion in the encyclopedia based on the full picture of available sources.
I do feel that there's now sufficient significant coverage, across major Canadian and international sources, and spanning nearly two years, to demonstrate its notability. Beyond the examples cited above, other major sources which have covered the tournament include: Sportsnet, The Sports Network, CTV News, CP24, The Province, Sporting News. TDL (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
BTW, re: independent coverage by The Province, did you mean to link here instead? (Written by Stephanie Ip of the Vancouver Sun, so it's independent of the other Sun article I linked to, which was authored by Neil Davidson of The Canadian Press.) Preimage (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose draftifying because I believe that this qualifies under WP:TOOSOON and WP:FUTUREEVENT. Article also exclusively relies on WP:PRIMARY, which will be resolved as the event takes place. 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 05:15, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I think this just might need a little more time in the oven. I personally feel like this could be better served either in a way that is more built out, and once more sources come out about the event itself. And once again, the article uses only 2 sources, both from the International Fencing Federation. 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 05:47, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
@Norellia.sh: I've already add one more source and the event are not start yet, not too many news about this tournment we can found. Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete – results portals run by the federation are the only sourcing (WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:GNG). Kukuryza (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
The event are just start yet and I'll add some independent sources later. Also that user suggest draftifying in the article, not delete it. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, many age-specific competitions do not attract notable competitors, lack media coverage etc. because they are doing it as a hobby and not as a profession. Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 08:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
