Wikipedia:XfD today

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

< November 06 November 08 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The Visitors (American band)

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

Unsourced article. Unable to find any evidence this rock group meets WP:MUSICBIO; my WP:BEFORE came up empty. I'd be happy to withdraw if evidence can be found. ResonantDistortion 13:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Don Yaeger

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

Having slashed a bunch of PROMO and non-independently-sourced cruft from the article (looks like a fair amount of COI editing was involved), there's barely anything left, and all of the sourcing I can find is pretty clearly non-independent or outright paid for. Happy to withdraw if someone confirms that 2 of these 30 books are notable, but I'm not gonna do a BEFORE on every single one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment (disclosure: I am a paid editor. I am paid by Greatness Inc., Don Yaeger's company, for marketing work. I have not edited the article and I am not voting.) The nomination asks whether two of the books are notable. Here is one independent profile of Yaeger himself and independent reviews of eight co-written books, each crediting Yaeger as co-author. Several reviews are lukewarm; I list them only as evidence of independent coverage.
I'll stay out of the discussion beyond this and will answer questions on my talk page. GMO at GlitchMediaGroup (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:47, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Elizabeth Ebosele

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

A person who's only claim to notability is being appointed to a government job. The sources are mostly about their appointment to said position with very little to no significant coverage on the subject themselves. Many of the references just go to the landing page of the news outlet, which does seem to indicate utilization of AI in the creation of this article. So far this person seems to fail the criteria of WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, and Nigeria. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - An official of a department that also fails WP:N. Zalaraz (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I initially didn't want to !vote on this but I want to inform those who don't understand how Nigerian politics works. This nomination is the same as the nomination of Jerry Uwangue. And what is here is the explanation given by VWF in that discussion. A Commissioner in Nigeria is not just a public service position (a Permanent Secretary, for example, is), it’s a member of the state cabinet of a country operating a federal system of government. You can read State Executive Council (Nigeria) to understand better. There’s an executive council (cabinet) for every state in Nigeria and these state cabinets all have cabinet members which a Commissioner is. So this person clearly passes the notability criteria for politicians. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per WP:NPOL. As Reading Beans explained, a state Commissioner in Nigeria sits on the state executive council, so this is a cabinet-level office and not a civil-service post like a Permanent Secretary. That puts her in the same position as the Commissioner kept in the Jerry Uwangue AfD. The nomination argues the sources cover her appointment and not her as a person. That matters for GNG, but NPOL is a separate route: holding a statewide office is enough on its own, and the sources only need to verify that she held it. Appointment announcements from independent outlets do that. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not an elected position. Sub-national appointees are not automatic WP:NPOL passes and this person fails WP:GNG. 🄻os🄰 15:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
    @LosAEdits, make arguments that you are knowledgeable about. NPOL literally reads “national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province-wide public office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[13] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.” I don’t see any vagueness in that text; it mustn’t be elected. Let me ask, do you elect judges? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 23:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. He doesn't pass WP:NPOL. He is just a government official doing his duty. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 05:50, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
    The person you're referring to is a "she" and not a "he". From this obvious error, its safe to assume that you did not read the article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:45, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. She doesn’t pass WP:NPOL.Jakofwiki (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those who oppose on WP:NPOL grounds should explain their reasoning, since the argument for keeping is that she is a member of a first-level subnational government.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Blue Eagle (character)

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

I propose merging to Squadron Supreme or List of Marvel Comics characters: B#Blue Eagle. A lack of notable sources exist for the character. Emcgonigle (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Pavel Hlava film

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

To preface this: Not strongly leaning delete, but also suggest WP:DRAFTIFY (though that may not be enough). To put it lightly, article tries to treat this film like the Zapruder film. Concerns about LLM use in its content, lacking references (among those it has, the article even cites our own Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks, which is discouraged), and potentially a lot of original research and synthesis, particularly in the Film analysis section. Created by new user in August, probably should have gone through WP:AFC to incubate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep but agree an almost total rewrite seems to be needed. // IndrasBet 「talk」 20:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The writing looks nothing like LLMs. The only noted signs of LLM usage were citations to Wikipedia and Grokipedia, which are very weak indicators for LLM-generated text. Any concerns with original research and poorly sourced content can be dealt with by removing portions of the text. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I have removed most of the original research and other problematic content from the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Gurkubondinn: did you have additional reasons to mark this article as AI-generated that I'm not seeing? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like I put most of it in the tag, created with references to Grokipedia and circular references to Wikipedia. There were also more circular references to Wikipedia added in Diff/1371877542.
I do remember about this article now that I take a look at it, but I don't remember what lead to me finding it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing NOLLM, per my other reply here and the {{ai-generated}} that I placed on the article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
    It is very plausible that a new editor who doesn't know about WP:RS would manually insert references to Wikipedia and Grokipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Paul Martin (Irish journalist)

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

Martin has some coverage about isn't focused enough to make a case for WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NACTOR. (, , , , ). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Ireland, and United Kingdom. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Weak keep. Based on the stuff found/added in my own BEFORE, I'd lean towards a "weak keep". While (other than the court reporting on Martin's convictions for fraud, harassment, driving offences) the non-trivial coverage is mostly based on interviews and the like (and therefore not entirely independent), I'd suggest that that is the case for most "journalists reporting on other journalists" type coverage. Personally don't support outright deletion. (This is neither a clear-cut "keep" or a clear-cut "delete". In those situations I'd normally lean "keep"...). WP:HEY also likely applies. Guliolopez (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Updated !vote to "weak keep". As above. Guliolopez (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 18:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY performed by Guliolopez and the point I’ve raised previously that routine coverage becomes less routine the more of it there is.
CSGinger14 (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Eva Bendix Petersen

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

Unclear that the subject meets the criteria for either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. I can't see significant coverage in a news or general web search to meet WP:GNG either. Boredintheevening (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and Social science. Boredintheevening (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: 2400 + citations in Gscholar. Gbooks search under the name and "book reviews" also shows numerous citations in bibliographies of various other works, I'd say this meets PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
    Fair. I think my expectation for what counts as being highly cited (in the social sciences) is a higher figure but I appreciate that it's a bit arbitrary. What do you usually think of as an approximate cut-off? Boredintheevening (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
    Depending on the field, anything over a few hundred. I look for other things as well, they all work together to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm leaning keep, but the citation format needs to be fixed. Bearian (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 07:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The only evidence of notability I could find was through WP:PROF#C1 and a few papers on her Google Scholar profile from 20 years ago that by now have accumulated low triple-digit citation counts. She apparently has an authored book and an edited volume but my searches did not find any published reviews. This is a high-enough citation field, so that doesn't convince me in the absence of anything else that would count. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
    Keep: If Oaktree B is saying it clears then it definitely clears.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't oppose what Oaktree B has said (and CSGinger14 echoed). I've posted on the Talk Page for Notability (academics) seeking more clarity about how to interpret citations as support for WP:PROF#C1 (re: significant impact) in case my standards are misaligned with consensus. Boredintheevening (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Scopus shows only 646 citations and h-index of 11, which is far lower than what would be expected for an NPROF pass in this field (in fact, her Scopus citation metrics fall directly between the mean and median of those of her 34 coauthors with 10+ papers). I don't see anything suggesting the extra GS citations don't scale proportionally for her colleagues. JoelleJay (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

2020 IIHF World U18 Championships

2020 IIHF World U18 Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Event canceled due to COVID-19. Does not seem notable - just press releases about preparation and cancellation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:55, 20 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)
Keep: I agree with Publicwalrus's rationale. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 02:54, 24 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I also agree with Publicwalrus's rationale. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Publicwalrus. Rlendog (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
    3 votes above are WP:KEEPPER. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:00, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Publicwalrus's sources. Yeah I know it's not the best argument, but they put it so much more succinctly that it fits the rationale. Conyo14 (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Likely meets WP:NEVENT due to the significance of it not happening and coverage received. If we wanna talk hockey an analogue could be the 2004–05 NHL season since that was also notable for not happening. Would also support a redirect to a suitable target if one can find one. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 22:16, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am unable to see evidence of SIGCOV. The sources provided above do not meet this bar: they note the fact of cancellation and nothing more. The cancellation itself is not likely to be notable: a very large number of events were cancelled that year, and I see no evidence that this cancellation received substantive coverage. If there were a list of tournaments or a main tournament article I would support a redirect. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – The sources don't show much other than the event was cancelled, an unextraordinary occurrence during 2020. If no games were even played, thus producing no results, then there's little reason to have a standalone article to show all the groups that the teams would have played had it been held. The sources up above seem to reflect the single line found in the table of the existing IIHF World U18 Championship, Competition cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Stikkyy (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Math and Other Problems

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

No sources to indicate notabilty, per a Google search. All available sources are from unreliable websites. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 02:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No usable sources from a search. Madeleine (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Some-normal-wikimedian (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC) — Some-normal-wikimedian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nomination is straight-up wrong. The article has a WP:MUSICRS, I repeat RS, in it as well as one on the talk page. Here are two very short writeups: . How about Newspapers.com? Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No indication of notability per WP:NALBUM
BuickRiviera99 15:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Geschichte. Satisfies WP:GNG easily. The other two reviews to which Geschichte refers are by Chorus.fm (which is very lengthy) and Allmusic . In addition to that, Billboard says the album won a number of awards (see and 23 January 1999, p 103). Some other coverage comes up in Google News. [The nomination also violates ATD-R and ATD-M, though this article ought to be kept as a standalone page]. James500 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the proposed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Premises

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. Previous AfD was kept based on WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments with no proof. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:03, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Building a Better California

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

I propose redirecting to 2026 California Proposition 40 because the PAC is not independently notable; it was founded to oppose a ballot measure and information on its spending and donors is already covered at the target page (the entire 'History' section on this page is an excerpt from the target page). aesurias (she/her) (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Reasons to keep:
A campaign-specific purpose does not, by itself, establish a lack of independent notability. An organization’s creation, financing, and role in coordinating political spending can themselves be subjects of substantial independent coverage. Reporting examines the organization’s donor network, fundraising, allocation of funds, and strategy across competing ballot measures. That gives readers something distinct from an explanation of Proposition 40. Plesae see how the Sacramento Bee and San Francisco Chronicle coverage supports evaluating it as an independently covered political organization, even where its activities are closely connected to that proposition.
Examples: Stephen Hobbs’s February 4 Sacramento Bee report discusses the committee’s formation, donors, and contributions of $6 million to a homeownership initiative and $5 million to an environmental-review initiative. It also reports that, at that time, the organization said it had not taken a position on the proposed billionaire tax. This is substantial reporting on the organization and its activities beyond Proposition 40.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article314564444.html
Christian Leonard’s October 6 San Francisco Chronicle report provides further coverage of its fundraising, donors, and spending across multiple measures. It acknowledges its housing and environmental-review activities while reporting that the overwhelming majority of its spending concerns the billionaire tax.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/billionaire-tax-spending-22463286.php Gretchenandrew (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Keep, the organization which is the subject of this AfD has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, therefore passes WP:GNG; additionally the subject of this AfD has received that coverage in multiple sources not connected to it and meets WP:NORG. That said, the vast majority of those sources are related to Proposition 40, and thus this is kind of a single event notability situation. BLP1E or BIO1E doesn't apply as the subject isn't an individual, but as most notability is for the event that is political campaign around Proposition 40, it would make a good redirect target. If the organization becomes active outside of just Proposition 40, and has received coverage about that in reliable sources, then the subject of this AfD, the organization is clearly one that meets notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:39, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
    Think under this logic it might be better to consider a merge.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
    Partly because there's no chance that this organization is gonna do anything outside of Prop 40.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Eastside Drama

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, poor and unreliable sources, as well as likely AI written. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 02:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep, as I found some reviews and from poking around on Google (more coverage is likely on Proquest), although if it is AI-generated, another user will have to add the sources and rewrite the article to keep. Nighfidelity (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Suspected AI-generated articles, United States of America, and California. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Satisfies GNG. There is also some other coverage in Google Books (eg in a history book from University of Texas Press and an album review in Rap Pages ) and Google News (eg The Source ). The article was created in 2011, so all you have to do is revert the page to the last human generated version, which appears to be the revision of 17 March 2014. The wikiproject essay WP:HUMANSIGNS says we can assume that edits made before 30 November 2022 were entirely human generated. James500 (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Bascharage (commune)

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

Duplicate of Bascharage, which already mentions its status as a former commune Procrastineur (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Luxembourg. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a duplicate as they discuss different topics and would lean to keep as a result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
    I would disagree; except for the population, all the information on Bascharage (commune) is already present on Bascharage. And aside from Clemency, there is no other case of a Luxembourgish commune, defunct or not, having an article that is separate from the one discussing its eponymous administrative centre.
    The practice on English Wikipedia is having the article on a given commune also be the article on the town where the commune has its administration (if that town gives its name to the commune). This is different from Luxembourgish Wikipedia, where the practice is indeed to have separate articles (e.g Luerenzweiler and Gemeng Luerenzweiler Procrastineur (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
    See my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemency (commune). Also, "separate articles for communes only if the commune is not named after the administrative center" makes no sense. I only see two options: either cover communes in the articles about their centers, regardless of the name of the commune, or have separate articles for communes and their centers. --Kapulakone (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't word that very well. There are essentially two types of communes in Luxembourg. Most communes take their name from an actual town or village; that also includes recently-ish formed communes that have resulted from mergers (e.g Wiltz, which absorbed Eschweiler in 2015). In some cases communes have the name of a town that is not its administrative centre (e.g Mertert, where the town hall is in Wasserbillig). Then you have communes that were created through mergers and took an "artificial" name, whether by combining existing names (e.g Rosport-Mompach, Groussbus-Wal, or by taking the names of geographical features that by themselves are not notable (e.g Helperknapp, Kiischpelt, Vallée de l'Ernz.
    So in the system presently used on English Wikipedia, the two articles I've nominated for deletion have no need to exist; they each correspond to existing towns that formerly gave their name to a commune. The article dedicated to the new commune of Käerjeng exists because there is no physical place simply called 'Käerjeng'.
    Your suggestion of having separate articles for communes is a possibility, but not a simple one. Only Luxembourgish Wikipedia does that right now. It would be considerably time intensive, would create many articles with little potential beyond being stubs (the typical format would simply be short lead + infobox + list of mayors), and would require making an arbitrary decision for each commune (e.g does the commune of Dudelange deserve a separate article like on LB Wikipedia, if it comprises no other notable towns/villages?) Procrastineur (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
    I understand what you meant now. Personally I think it is a better idea to cover the communes in the articles about their centers in this case; while obviously not 100% analogous, I've done this myself with articles about Russian places, where I have prioritized the center over the municipality (see Samolva for an example), since the municipalities themselves don't seem to be that notable (not a lot of info beyond statistics). The same would likely apply here.
    My idea was basically "all or nothing" i.e.
    1. have Bascharage + Bascharage (commune) + Käerjeng
    2. only have an article for the town of Bascharage, and cover both the former Bascharage commune and Käerjeng in the article about the town (I assume Bascharage is the center of Käerjeng).
    However, I don't know if either option is a good idea, as they might go against GNG, and you are way more informed on the topic than I am.
    Right now, I'd say redirect this to Bascharage, and do the same with Clemency (commune) > Clemency, Luxembourg. -- Kapulakone (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:56, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

List of the largest fast food restaurant chains

List of the largest fast food restaurant chains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article consists of two ordered lists of fast food chains sorted by revenue and by outlet count, where those numbers are sourced to different years (some almost twenty years apart) and measured in different ways. The talk page notes that the table appears to mix corporate revenue with systemwide sales, comparing Burger King's US$23.4 billion sales to McDonald's US$23.2 billion revenue.

(Until July this year it was a single table with columns for location count and revenue.)

Without a single source measuring these numbers in the same way at the same time (as is the case for other articles like List of largest meat companies in Germany or List of largest technology companies by revenue), I'm not sure this is salvageable. I haven't been able to find such a source. Belbury (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Belbury (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep These seem like clean-up issues, it's a valid navigational list that provides more info and context than the simple bulleted list at List of fast food restaurant chains. I see no reason listing them by stores and revenue must have identical source timing. Other sources include . Reywas92Talk 21:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
    The first source is paywalled so I don't know what data it's offering, although it appears to be US only and the fast food subset would need to be derived manually. None of the others give sales figures. The third source looks like the strongest for outlet count, as a list of 19 chains globally.
    Using figures from different years is misleading in a ranked list. An alphabetical list deliberately avoiding any ranking, where the user has to scroll down the list to find the largest number and then decide for themselves how to compare that to other figures from other years, would seem less useful than just repeating the World Atlas list and nothing else. Belbury (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep but as one list, not two. And the revenue can be gotten from the parent article, updating it that way. Dream Focus 09:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, per reasons in nom. Trivialist (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Left-wing alternative media in the United States

Left-wing alternative media in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has had issues for as long as I can remember and they have never been fixed for years. It's time to put it to rest once and for all. It's not even an encyclopedia article, just a list of news sites. Does it really meet the criteria for existing? It could also be merged into alternative media, which also needs more citations. Maybe they could muster enough citations if combined and reduced. Or it could be converted into a draft. But I think outright deleting is the most WP:BOLD choice here for an "article" of such poor quality. 1101 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Philosophy, Radio, Television, History, Politics, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lists are a thing on Wikipedia. An article being poor quality, or simply stating that it doesn't meet the criteria for existing, is not sufficient reasoning for a deletion nom. I don't have an opinion here. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article reads like a list but it should be overhauled with a proper history section. It should look more like an article, not a list. Segaton (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
    @Talib1101 Hey! That paragraph sounds a lot like you're using deletion as cleanup! Don't.
    Keep per Salon, The Young Turks, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, Jacobin, Slate, The Huffington Post, Current Affairs, Zeteo, NowThis (those are all the ones I could list off the top of my head), Mother Jones, The Intercept, The Daily Beast, DemocracyNow, New Republic, etc.. Trust me there's been analysis of left-wing alternative media.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "per [list of news sites]", that analysis is already provided in individual articles? Or...? Just because we analyse the news sites somewhere else doesn't mean... Anyway, a lot of Wikipedia articles are essentially lists, so we could consider naming it "List of left-wing alternative media in the United States". Also, does this automatically notify the article creator or must I do that manually? I am still new to these processes. 1101 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
    1. You haven’t indicated what those issues are, or why they necessitate deletion
    2. In response to your point above, as a list it garners notability off the notability of its subjects. If it isn’t a list, then it garners notability off the vast breadth of analysis that undoubtedly exists covering the proliferation of left wing media across the United States. WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST would be a pretty lazy policy to raise given how widespread discussion of this topic is. That’s my point in making this argument per [list of news sites].
    CSGinger14 (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I would like to see more prose, but there is ample references for the page. --Enos733 (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're still lacking discussion of the notability of the topic, whether as an article or a list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Rashat Rahman Zico

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO

Most of the references are about TV dramas adapted from his stories. Even I have searched for Bengali sources, but found no reliable sources that could meet WP:GNG

Being a published author or screenwriter alone does not guarantee notability.

I believe the article should be deleted unless better sources found that meets GNG.

Emdad Tafsir   ◀ Talk ▶ 12:09, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Joe Henderson (footballer, born 1993)

Joe Henderson (footballer, born 1993) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficiently notable. One professional appearance, as a late substitute in 2012. Haz215 (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Mungo Bridge

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

Not sufficiently notable. Three professional appearances and had only a two-year career in the sport. Haz215 (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Mark Bellingham

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

Bellingham did not play at a fully professionalised level. He is the father of two notable footballers, but this is not necessarily enough on its own to justify inclusion, especially as the article does not primarily focus on this aspect of his life, and instead on his non-league career.

I would possibly propose redirecting to either Jude or Jobe Bellingham, or alternatively rewriting the article to focus on Mark Bellingham's more recent media coverage (he has gained attention for making provocative statements regarding his sons' careers), but as it stands today, it's a Delete. Haz215 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:51, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - Has sources (not involving Jude Bellingham) , , , among other sources and this mentions Jude but goes in-depth into his non league career and he is regarded as significant figure in English non-league football (on top of being Jude's father). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    I see your argument, but two of those are sources are interviews with Bellingham himself, and my understanding is that he needs to have at least made an appearance in a fully-professional league (National League/Conference or above) to be classed as having been a professional per Wiki guidelines. I think there is possibly a case to be made for his inclusion based on his headline-grabbing behaviour and comments in recent years, but that's not where the article's focus lies at the moment. Haz215 (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
They all contain at least some secondary coverage which I could list if necessary and the appearance in a fully pro league is not the main criteria anymore (and other editors can confirm this). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Oriel Sea Salt

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

Merge to Oriel Sea Minerals - The two pages were created at the same time by the same person (and lots of edits were made at the same time to the minute across both articles) , they cover roughly the same topic and I cannot see a reason that the saleable product should not be included within the wider mineral article. BleachPuffin (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Jerome Federico

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

Not sufficiently notable. One professional appearance for Wycombe as a youth player, and one as an 89th minute substitute for Stevenage. Haz215 (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Stankica Atanasova

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

In my Macedonian searches, I could only find trivial mentions, so I can't see WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The article was created at a time when the international caps were enough on their own but consensus has changed. My best sources are Kanal5, Nova Makedonija and Komarec, all trivial mentions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, due to the consensus changing, and I think it's actually a good case in point. Delete Haz215 (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Danny Allen-Page

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

Not sufficiently notable. Subject made one professional appearance for Brentford in 2003 in a cup fixture. Haz215 (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Dan Thompson (footballer)

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

Not sufficiently notable - one professional appearance for Portsmouth, in a League Cup fixture as a youth prospect, rest of career is non-league. Haz215 (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Dubki (selo), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast

Dubki (selo), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging every place listed in Razdolyevskoye Rural Settlement, Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast#Localities into that table. (Disclaimer: I just created the target article.) While they might technically meet WP:NPLACE, every one I've checked (including the administrative center) is a stub with the same set of basic statements and database-like sources. Therefore, I think we should merge them together as per WP:SHORTTEXT, giving each place a row in the table, and putting the unique content of each article into columns such as Russian name, English transliteration, type, coordinates, 2010 population, number of streets, and a catch-all "Notes" (or whatever other wording y'all'd prefer). If the notes for any of them get too long, they can be split back out later. Solomon Ucko (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Europe, and Russia. Solomon Ucko (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep The standalone article has a map which cannot be included in the table. The Russian Wikipedia also has an extensive history section that can be included in a standalone article, but not in the table. There are more than 60 localities in the district, each of them does not merit more than a row in the table in the target article, per WP:ASPECT. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    Razdolyevskoye Rural Settlement has a map too. The most zoomed-in option available is Vladimir Oblast, within which the locations of the dots are very close together, so it would be hard for most people to get any value out of looking at it beyond what they'd get from the Settlement's map. If you'd like, I can try to make a combined map of all 67 localities on the scale of Kolchuginsky District, which I think would be much more useful.
    Russian Wikipedia indeed has more detail for each of the localities, but unless someone translates it, I don't see how that's relevant.
    I agree that each one only merits one row in the target article, and that is indeed appropriate for the amount of content each one currently has. As I said in my nomination, if any get expanded with enough detail, they can be converted back into their own articles then. But until that happens, unless someone is planning to do that soon, I don't see a point in keeping them separate.
    Solomon Ucko (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    Listing all settlements on a single map will only lead to clutter. That this can be expanded is a good reason not to merge. Following your logic, we should merge all stubs unless they are immediately expanded, which is clearly contrary to community consensus. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    There are ways to make the combined map less cluttered, such as by labeling each place with a number or abbreviation instead of its full name, and using the whole width of the page instead of cramming the image into an infobox. Regardless, what use-case is there for a bunch of separate little maps?
    I do not think we should "merge all stubs unless they are immediately expanded", but I do support merging any stub that meets the following criteria:
    • It has been short for a long time, and there are no active plans for substantial expansion, even if it would theoretically be possible
    • It has a single primary parent article, and would fit well into there
    This reflects long-standing guidance. About 19½ years ago, the page that I think was then titled Help:Merging and moving pages was changed to state: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." This has become WP:SHORTTEXT: "If an article is short and, in your opinion as editor, is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into the article on the broader topic." I'm not sure if there was a specific discussion that agreed upon this, but this advice has WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and the closest I've seen to disagreement is a request for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Merging/Archive 1#"a reasonable amount of time". Here are some of the early comments supporting this idea: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Jones (singer) (2nd nomination)#c-Lucasbfr-2007-04-25T09:05:00.000Z-Lemonflash-2007-04-19T00:18:00.000Z.
    Solomon Ucko (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep these are all eligible for stand-alone articles and can be expanded. I do not believe merging serves the reader better. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

XSLT elements

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

Poorly referenced violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, does not appear notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 07:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
It cites W3C standards published as recently as 2021. Most notable, IMHO.
Further regression will be caused by breaking the consistency with HTML element and losing specific detail that helps a reader’s understanding. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The above either is AI generated, or needs AI copyedit to actually be understandable... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Not AI, so please consider my manual copy edit first?
I oppose deletion for “does not appear notable” because, IMHO, how can’t publications from active W3C Workgroup be? They’ve even won 3-4 Emmy’s.
Also, most other W3C Workgroups are recognized as notable enough to have their own Wiki. Removing this one in particular would make it all inconsistent. Thereby worse.
Also, Google just (2026) finished deleting all XSLT libs / references from Chrome. Right when their Chrome Platform Status indicated XSLT rose to historical [click it in the graph ahead ] peaks in ‰ of page loads.
In the same vein, what’s up with deleting this for not a tutorial when ‘HTML Elements’ are allowed to supplement ‘HTML’ with brief descriptions about actual functionality? That would also worsen Wikipedia because it’ll create internal incoherency’s, bias, etc. Worse still. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Forgot to include this link to the XSLT 1.0 Tutorial by D. Olteanu at Oxford Department of Computer Science:
Dan Olteanu https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/dan.olteanu/tutorials/xslt1.pdf
Compare and contrast with this encyclopedic mention ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I hate AI, but fired op the latest Apple Intelligence with the beta firmware that I was allowed in to bla bla.
Proof-read had no notes, locally and private cloud compute. ChatGPT wasn’t queried.
Rewrite resulted in [AI reduction]
It cites W3C standards published as recently as 2021. Most notable, IMHO. Further regression will be caused by breaking the consistency with HTML elements and losing specific detail that helps a reader’s understanding. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is this poorly referenced? Yes. Is this poorly constructed? Somewhat. Is the topic notable? Yes. XSLT is a computer language with whole books discussing XSLT elements (the building blocks of that language). This is essentially a list of those elements and is a list article. Given that a quick look in google scholar and google books per WP:BEFORE shows that these elements are discussed as a group or set in many published materials it passes WP:NLIST. We absolutely can have an article on this topic. I can't see how we can cover computer languages if we can't in some way list the elements of those languages in the same way we would cover the English alphabet as part of covering the English language.4meter4 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the topic meet WP:NLIST to warrant a list of elements in addition to the article on XSLT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Cricket League

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

No WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV, only WP:ROUTINE coverage; fails WP:GNG for a standalone article. Vestrian24Bio 10:02, 20 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)
I've added more references now. I hope this helps. Diatu (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - All articles that i think pass WP:ROUTINE are discussing the accreditation as a premier league, the article in Mancunian Matters is the main source for the majority of the article, and I don't think that is sufficient to pass [WP:GNG]. Two pieces of toast (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the pair of recently added sources go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage: "Greater Manchester Cricket League format revealed" & "Greater Manchester cricket given Premier League seal of approval"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Raymond W. Yeung

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

Created by a sock account, and sources are inadequate to establish any significant notability. Sources are just primary institutional websites about awards and include sources that are WP:SELF research articles with zero media coverage of their significance. Also, major contributors appear to be WP:SPAs- UtoD 09:21, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Cafehorn

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

Article is unsourced beyond one, largely promotional, newspaper clipping, and is made up mostly of promotional language. There don't seem to be any external independent sources about the instrument or the claims made. Haz215 (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Essentially, my argument is that this is 'some guy's wacky invention that he managed to get into the local paper', and I don't think that meets notability really. Haz215 (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Xi Zhang (professor)

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

The only sources given are primary sources and institutional websites and there are no proper secondary sources adequate to establish notability. Also the largest contributors to the article are two accounts named Piggy H and Littlepiggy0807, which feel like promotional accounts and these two accounts have been used solely to create and edit this page. -UtoD 09:05, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Blagomir Mastagarkov

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

I propose redirecting to PFC_Lokomotiv_Plovdiv because while the subject has made professional appearances, there is very little information available on his career and I have not found any sources to support the claims made in the article about clubs he has played for or his later media work. I'm just not sure there's enough there. Haz215 (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Renegade Swords IV

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

I propose redirecting to DMR Books because the book seems to fail WP:NBOOK as things currently stand. There doesn't seem to be any non-trivial independent coverage of the book or series from reliable sources and the sourcing is entirely primary. This same problem exists with the articles for the other three, which I'll bundle with this nomination. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 08:43, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related articles:
Renegade Swords III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Renegade Swords II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Renegade Swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taxi (chocolate)

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

Unnotable and only primary sources Update6 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: this survived the first nomination 20 years ago (itself a follow-up to a G11 speedy deletion that was contested at DRV), but standards both for articles and for AfD discussions were lower back then. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to a list of McVities products. Product info is of interest to people looking for information on discontinued chocolates and there are coverage of said products out there. Ultimate Norman (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC).
  • Keep Per the very lacking rationale and the nominator reversing my non-admin closure asking for a proper reason (which is 100% just fine to do unlike what they claimed in reverting said closure). Nathannah • 📮 01:31, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do non-primary sources exist to establish notability? And if so, are they sufficient to expand this article beyond a stub?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Ronald MacKay

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:NBIO. Aneirinn (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Atippat Pornariyasombat

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

No coverage outside of databases Shocksingularity (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep, meets WP:NSPORT and WP:NCHESS since he is one of the representatives for the Thai team for the Chess Olympiad tournament. He also passes WP:GNG as he had other secondary sources in TCA Prajuab Cup, 4จอมโขกนำร่วมหมากรุกไทยแลนด์โอเพ่น, and Deep Sengupta holds Short. Skaterlight2013 (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 07:11, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep as per rationale above. Haz215 (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - A subject-specific notability guideline can provide the presumption of notability, but at the end of the day it still needs to have enough sources to write an article without relying entirely on primary sources, databases, etc. If that's a common occurrence with that particular guideline, it should be revisited. Not opposed to redirecting to a tournament/team article as appropriate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Rohan Rajbhar

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

This article about an Indian cricket player does not speak for itself. It says that he plays U-23 cricket. That does not in itself result in notability. Nothing in this article describes significant coverage by reliable sources. I am not providing an analysis of the sources, because the article as written does not discuss significant coverage. The issue is not the sources, but the article itself. The article has already been draftified once and moved back into article space, but is not ready for article space. This article should be sent back to draft space one more time, with instructions to expand the text, and possibly find better sources.

Kim Noller

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

This is someone who is ran a small community newspaper for four years, and doesn't appear to have done anything notable while owner. Article lacks third-party sources and the subject does not appear notable. Eric Schucht (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Satirical ostraca

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

Merge to ostracon, very short topic that can be well accommodated in "parent" article. There are some other hits on Google Scholar (excluding the passing mentions) but the WP:SPINOUT can happen at a later time. Geschichte (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment Why is a nomination for deletion being justified by a proposal for merging? In the old days this used to be grounds for WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
    All mergers are now handled through AFD. Geschichte (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Haldia Energy Power Station

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I could find only one mention in a small publication and a passing reference to it in an academic paper on a different subject Ar1201u1 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:14, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Alberto Ravagnani

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

Own deletion per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS In solidarity, Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 04:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete in support of the above. Haz215 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW close, eight votes to keep within five hours of nomination. (non-admin closure) Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 14:02, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Results of the 2026 New Zealand general election

Results of the 2026 New Zealand general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS, and I don't see how these results can't be incorporated into the actual article. If the results do prove to warrant their own article, that can be decided in the future, but WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to also apply there. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: New Zealand and Politics. Canley (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep As nomination makes little sense. How is an election results article a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL on the day of the election, with polls now closed? How is covering the results of an election not encyclopedic? Are election results not worth covering because the news media also cover them? AusLondonder (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Speedy keep While there may have previously been a potential for this page to be unnecessary ahead of the election, now that the New Zealand has begun its preliminary count it will be important to exist. Lord Beesus (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per the others – seriously? nil nz 07:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Do agree that some of this probably could be merged into the main article but if it warranted a separate page in 2023 and 2020 and 2017 then I don't think this is a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. What about this election would be different? --LivelyRatification (she/her • talk) 07:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Polls are closed. Might as well keep the article as it is likely it will have a fair bit of content soon. Milkk7 (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per AusLondonder ItsKittay (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Too soon to suggest these results can be incorporated into the parent election article, which is already very large, and with this election result both marginal and groundbreaking it could itself be very large.-Gadfium (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Look at the size of 2026 New Zealand general election and Results of the 2023 New Zealand general election, it absolutely makes sense to split out the detailed results (by electorate) into a separate list article with a summary table in the main article. There are thousands of precedents for this on Wikipedia for elections around the world. I also don't see how WP:CRYSTALBALL (voting has closed) and WP:NOTNEWS (elections and their results are encyclopaedic) are relevant, and the nomination is pretty soft and vague on how these apply. --Canley (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Benjamin Lee (Hawaii politician)

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

Position does not appear to automatically confer notability and I could almost nothing about Lee that isn't just him giving a quote as the spokesperson for the department. There was a bit of coverage in 1998 when he was appointed to the role of managing director, but nothing lasting. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Hawaii. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The article itself provides no credible claim to notability and offers no in-depth secondary source coverage. Routine coverage of staffing appointments does not demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article fails WP:NPOL, WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Hiili Hiilesmaa

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Previous the no-consensus close rested on one sockpuppet !vote. Kqol • talk 23:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge to one of his bands. Fails WP:BANDMEMBER Othossia (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merged, then with which band....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:32, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Telecogresca

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Closed last time as no consensus with the only a sockpuppet !vote. Kqol • talk 23:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussions: 2021-10 (closed as no consensus)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Association of Acupuncture Clinicians

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

Fails WP:ORG notability criteria. Much of the article is entirely unsourced, and frequently promotional. Where sources are cited, they are either not independent, or lacking anything substantive in regard to in-depth discussion of the association. Essentially, all the sources demonstrate is that the organisation exists, and that it has participated in discussions with other bodies, neither of which establishes notability. I have been unable to locate anything that might provide the required significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Teplitz

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

The article was originally created by a blocked user (Historian Felix) and consists almost entirely of text from a large language model. The article has references that are "War History" blogs and lacks any significant, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. The title is also unencyclopedic as the engagement is historically recognized as a combat rather than a major battle. Russo-winner1234 (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that either the LLMPROD should be removed, or this AfD should be speedy-closed, otherwise they will get into a catfight. Personally I would speedy-close this and let the LLMPROD run. M kuhner (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Second Battle of Kulm, which is also known by this name unless and until a new article is written about the earlier battle. Jahaza (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)


Continuous binomial distribution

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

I proposed this for deletion with the following rationale: "There are two references in the article. One of them does not appear to support any information in the article, and does not seem to mention the article subject. The other is a brand-new research article that seems to claim the subject of this article as a new coinage. I was unable to find other sources on this topic. This, it appears to be a neologism that does not have widespread acceptance, and it is too soon to support a Wikipedia article on this subject until more secondary literature exists." The prod was removed by Statisticsresearcher who left a message on the talkpage that IMO does not address this concern and offers an unconvincing case for notability. --JBL (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Initial contributor here; Thank you for raising these concerns. I've revised the introduction and added two references documenting earlier appearances of the underlying distribution. I hope these additions help clarify its historical background. Bayesianism (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
As far as this article seems able to establish, there is ONE paper using this newly coined term. The assertion that studies in 1955 and 1969 are describing the same distribution is, itself, not cited to anything, so seems to be WP:OR: we have nothing except the article author's word that these are the same distribution. (Not saying that the author is wrong! I don't have enough skill to evaluate the claim and one of the papers is paywalled for me. But a secondary source is really needed here, because Wikipedia editors in general shouldn't be doing this kind of analysis, only reporting about reliable sources that have done it.)
Delete as this is WP:TOOSOON until someone has actually written about it in a review paper or other secondary source. M kuhner (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I've revised the article to clarify the historical connection to Bates (1955) is also noted in Lee et al. (2026), not a claim made by wiki editors. Bayesianism (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Files

File:2022 – União Brasil.webp

File:2022 – União Brasil.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Przelijpdahl (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Verify if "Agência Liderança" is a press/photo agency. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. I consider that the file is legitimate under the Non-Free use rationale, due to the lack of free alternatives (WP:NFCC1), the respect it has for Wikipedia's media policy (WP:NFCC6)and the significance it holds in depicting the foundation of that political party, which is an important event for this Article (WP:NFCC7) Przelijpdahl (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete it is a photo of two alive people that are public figures, by definition it breaks WP:NFCC1, as of course a free equivalent [...] could be created. Edit: these two people have pages of their own with images, making this picture even less relevant. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:21, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Georgia (country)–Palestine relations

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and an article about a Greek Orthodox monastery in Palestine which has no apparent link to bilateral relations between these two countries. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Category:Establishments in Indian Territory by century

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete The Indian Territory existed from 1834 to 1906. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:48, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Category:Shia mosques in Israel

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Merge Israel is a Jewish state, and most Muslims in Israel are Sunnis, so there shouldn't be many articles that belong here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:50, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Category:Marine Protector-class coastal patrol boats

Nominator's rationale: As the article is called Marine Protector-class patrol boat (no coastal) the category should be the same. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Category:Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank

Nominator's rationale: Consistency, cf.
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Palestine
  2. Category:Governorates of Palestine TopoName (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Category:Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority in the Gaza Strip

Nominator's rationale: Consistency, cf.
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Palestine
  2. Category:Governorates of Palestine TopoName (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Category:Films about juvenile sexuality

Nominator's rationale: Most films concern adolescents rather than children. Puzzlepiecelad (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Redirects

Stadtteil

WP:RLOTE: I see no particular affinity of the target to German-speaking places. If someone wants to stub this thing, I have no objections. Paradoctor (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

ISSeG

Delete as there is no information about this project at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an article from 2006 to 2011 which was BLAR'd as ..non-notable, no independent sources. There is nothing relevant at Grid computing or Grid Security Infrastructure as well. Jay 08:36, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

1st mi

Seems like a rather vague and potentially confusing or ambiguous abbreviation for the target. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep Web search indicates "1st MI" to be the primary topic for this term. Potential other meanings can be hatnoted. The only one that comes to mind is first mile, but I found no instances of this. Paradoctor (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Birdie Silverstein

Coming here from With Love (TV series). The redirect target doesn't make any sense. Apparently Silverstein is the child of Philipps, but that is not clear from the target. The only context in the article is Philipps married screenwriter Marc Silverstein on June 16, 2007. They have two children. (emphasis mine). As a reader, I was clueless about who Silverstein was until I searched their name and found this article from People. Silverstein is not mentioned elsewhere in Philipps' article, as a Ctrl+F for Birdie Silverstein fails. As Silverstein is likely not notable for a Wikipedia article, delete this redirect until they are. --ABx11 (she/they) 06:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Anna Lake

No lake with this name is listed at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:46, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Alexis Read

Alt name not mentioned at target (and Alexis Reed points elsewhere) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

LXVIII Army (Germany)

Target was a corps, not an army. Delete this to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Readius

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Eye Care Professional

Capitalization doesn't really matter at this point.

snowc

Give em the bidness!

22:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a harmless {{R from other capitalisation}} and is already tagged as such. No need for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 11:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. If someone links from some other Wikipedia article to Eye Care Professional and there's no redirect, they won't be redirected to eye care professional. This particular redirect is a perfect exaple of why it is important to have redirects. It's not just about redirecting them from something they entered in a search box; it's about links from a Wikipedia article to an incorrectly capitalized title. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RPURPOSE: "Likely alternative capitalisations (for example, Natural Selection redirects to Natural selection)". This is also an old redirect, from 2009, so it's possible that some external/non-wiki sites link directly to this redirect. Zzz plant (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
  • keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Due to an incompletely reverted closure, this redirect has not been tagged since November 3 and was only retagged a few minutes ago. I suggest we leave this open for a few more days to balance things out. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Chess enjoyer notes, this discussion was not properly tagged on the redirect page. Relisting to give the redirect's viewers a fair chance to provide further commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Battles 2

other things with "battles 2" in their titles exist, though somehow, btdb2 might actually be the primary topic for the entire text string as it is, so consider this a weak nom consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

"btdb2 might actually be the primary topic for the entire text string as it is" This was what I had believed when I created the redirect, yes. Its official subreddit (as in, staffed by actual Ninja Kiwi employees) and the update notes posted on the Steam page shorten the game's name that way, for instance. I am under the impression that there needs to be evidence that other products are shortened to "Battles 2" as is for there to be a problem. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 14:21, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
gratuitous space battles and great naval battles' sequels which apparently exist seem to be distant seconds, with movie battles 2 (with the disgusting roman numeral) as a somewhat closer third consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Again, there needs to be evidence that those sequels are referred to as simply "Battles 2". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 14:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Templates and Modules

Template:Infobox V8 Supercar record

After over 20 years, a grand total of 76 articles use it... Suggest replacing all uses with {{Infobox racing driver}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:25, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Replace and delete sensible consolidation. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:24, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox British Touring Car Championship record

After over 20 years, a grand total of 24 uses... Suggest replacing all uses with {{Infobox racing driver}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:22, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Replace and delete also sensible consolidation like for Template:Infobox V8 Supercar record. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:25, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Miscellany

Deletion review