Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Events

1982 Los Angeles Rams–Green Bay Packers game

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

Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Sports. I do not see what about this game merits an article. A 23 point comeback is far from a record. Sourcing does not indicate that this game rose above the notability of any other game, with only a few blog posts that are recent. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, California, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lee Remmell highlighted the game in two articles from 2004 and 2006. I will also note that the game is mentioned in a LOT of 2013 articles after the 2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game (which is also at AFD) (see here, which is in the article). Didn't want to blatantly add a bunch of those type of sources, but I definitely can add more. There are two full length "blog" articles on the game ([1][2]), both written by writers with extensive background writing about the NFL and Packers, likely meeting the threshold of a "subject matter expert". The game is also referenced in Cliff Christl's definitive history on the first 100 years of Packers history (a physical print book), which is in the article and seems to be missed by the nominator. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game

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

Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Sports. There is not enough about this regular season game for an article, even with a 23 point comeback. This can be sufficiently covered in the season articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Texas, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Game seems run-of-the-mill. The comeback was big, but not especially historic. There doesn't appear to be any notable sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calling it one of the best games in the Packers Cowboys rivalry, published in 2024, SportingNews calling it one of the best games in the rivalry, published in 2019, another 2024 article from MJS with a section on the game, another MJS article from 2015 highlighting it as one of the best comebacks by the Packers. Cliff Christl highlighted the game in his book chronicling the first 100 years of Packers history, which I have added to the article. Obviously also well covered after it happened in 2013, and as PFR.com notes, is the Packers franchise record for a comeback. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Solomon Islands protests

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

An ordinary protest without much lasting effects, probably fails WP:EVENT A1Cafel (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Oceania. A1Cafel (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the event is referenced years later, so I don't think it could be called ordinary. Wikipedia already has a WP:BIAS against events outside of Europe and North America and deleting this would exacerbate it.--User:Namiba 16:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is now expanded and updated. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY bc of User:Moondragon21, and I agree with user:Namiba's reasoning. Further, upon cursory examination it seems like a decently important event for politics in the Solomon Islands.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Albanian protests

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

An ordinary protest without much lasting effects, probably fails WP:EVENT A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is now expanded and updated. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Indian general strike

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

Labour strike that fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. No coverage beyond 2019. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many sources called it "biggest strike in history". 200M strikers no joke. Yes there is coverage beyond 2009, e.g, this 2021 book. --Altenmann >talk 18:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious sustained coverage. It has been covered in books or journals several times after 2019, for example, 2020 [3][4] and 2024 [5]. And if you can bother checking, there's a lot more hits in Google Scholar and Google Books. MarioGom (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Churs

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

Hoax? I already moved two articles by the same creator to draftspace because many of the sources didn't seem to exist (Draft:Battle of Urmia (June 1918) and Draft:Battle of Urmia (April 1918) (2)), and the next one I checked was this one. This time, the first source does exist[6] but it doesn't mention Churs. The source given as attribution also exists ([7] but also doesn't mention Churs. So then I looked through Google, and I can find no sources at all outside Wikipedia that even mention a "Battle of Churs". Fram (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Fram (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram Ilyazamani12 shouldn't edit or create articles about this topic to start with, they need WP:XC status per WP:GS/AA. I have left notices on their talk page but to no avail, seems like admins have to get involved. I think you can withdraw the nomination and move the article to draft space without leaving a redirect, per WP:GS/AA. Wouldn't that be the equivalent to a deletion? Vanezi (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen Bar dismissal attempt

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

Reasons:

Ronen Bar has resigned, and the question became theoretic.
At least two articles cover the topic: Ronen Bar, Qatari connection affair.
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTEMP. _Dgw|Talk 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ronen Bar. The dismissal itself is notable, but there is no need for a separate page, as opposed to a subsection of his biographical article. Per WP:NOPAGE, the information about the dismissal attempt, the resignation, and the other life information about Ronen Bar are "best collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page". Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. The sequence of events described in the article is highly unusual in Israel. Such a dismissal is a one-time occurrence. Even if he ultimately chose to resign, the chain of events remains exceptional and warrants a separate entry.Hila Livne (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something being unusual or a one-time occurrence is not a policy-based grounds for making something its own page. Lots of unusual things happen to people on a one-time basis. Even if those unusual events are notable, the question is whether having all of the information in one place would create readability, WP:UNDUE, or other similar types of concerns. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ronen Bar: This happened just over a month ago, notability hasn't been shown outside of the individual. This can be discussed in Bar's article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Světec train crash

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

No indication of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This article is about an event which appears not to have received any coverage beyond initial reporting on the day of, or after, the event four years ago. Although the content might be suitable for merging to the railway station page, there is no article there. C 679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Czech Republic. C 679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation is still under way.

https://di.gov.cz/mimoradne-udalosti/setrene-mimoradne-udalosti-a-zaverecne-zpravy/svetec-

https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne GoogolManiac (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RS:X Youth World Championships

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

The list of championships includes only 13 events, none of which have their own Wikipedia article. This leads me to believe the page may violate notability guidelines. I think it should be merged back into the main article, as it doesn't meet the criteria for a standalone page. However, given the heavy reliance on primary sources, there may be little, if any, content worth merging. Johnson524 06:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can ever reach that conclusion. It is a World Championship formally recognised by the IOC recognised sporting body. To add to this it is the "Youth" World Championship on the same equipment as used in the Olympic Games hence a number of high profile sailors. All the content for this has been on wikipedia for a number of years in templates. As per a previously agreed policy with other editors who requested that the events side is not on the same page as the equipment these event pages for each title were created. The title definately meets the sports notability requirement although I doubt individual event do. I will work more on the referencing but even this is much better than the previous 10 years. I would say this page also demostrates the usefullness of wikipedia as the official website for the RS:X disappeared within 18 months of the equipment not being used as Olympic equipment. The event is no longer held. Yachty4000 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vyry bus–train collision

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. The only lasting coverage I can find is where it's described in one paragraph in an article about train collisions (in Ukrainian). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ukraine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Jalaun district bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Uttar Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ghana. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Drake Passage earthquake

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

Fail WP:EVENT; this is an earthquake with no lasting impact or in-depth coverage unworthy of its own article. Has not caused serious impact or disruption. Some notable aspects of the article suitable for Wikipedia can be merged into List of earthquakes in 2025 as the list has dictated. An article is unnecessary Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for similar reasons. Quake1234 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quake1234 you need to explicitly vote by adding a bolded Support/Oppose or Keep/Delete FYI Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Argentina, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no enduring impact. Mikenorton (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Dora. Any arguments about strength amount to WP:TRIVIA at this stage. Borgenland (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incoming WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments which has taken off recently in AfDs Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge a brief snippet to list 2025 earthquakes and redirect per nom.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some details to the notes section of the table entry for this quake at List of earthquakes in 2025. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a high-magnitude earthquake—the strongest in over 75 years in the area. It caused no damage but did lead to evacuations due to tsunami warnings. Many less significant earthquakes, especially in the United States, have their own Wikipedia pages. Pristino (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pristino, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that notability is based on the sourcing, not how important it feels or whether there are other articles that might also need to be deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: 2018 Hawaii earthquake. It had a lower magnitude that this one (6.9 vs. 7.4) and occurred in an earthquake-prone area as well. No damage was reported. Not WP:WAX, because (1) there was talk of deleting the article, but no AfD was initiated, and (2) it has survived a full seven years on Wikipedia. Pristino (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:News article, not an encyclopedic subject. No significant secondary coverage. A merge is unnecessary as a single list entry on the target page is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – No impact from the earthquake. Bakhos Let's talk! 03:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:EVENT, no lasting effect.--Darius (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad University shooting

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

While clearly serious, this shooting involved no fatalities (fortunately), appears rooted in a personal dispute, and lacks any indication of broader significance, national/regional impact, or lasting consequences/discussion. Coverage is minimal and localized Mooonswimmer 05:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering deletion when I came across this in NPP earlier. I agree that this event doesn't seem to have had lasting impact and was only reported in passing in local news sources – one of which appears to have been closely paraphrased here. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iraq. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only has local news coverage, there is not much impact. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find limited news coverage from the day of the event, nothing since. Does not appear to have any lasting effect, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: The dispute issue is clearly alleged & there is probably more into it. This was an attempted mass murder & should be treated like one. There are many victims aswell who were impacted by this shooting & although it only lasted 50 seconds, it could've been much worse if it wasn't stopped on time. Currings (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Shankargb (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the shooting was (allegedly) inspired by Western-styled school shootings, thus giving a sense of notability and broader meaning a part of a more global phenomenon.

Murder of Melissa Batten

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not shown to have continued coverage beyond news reports at the time of the incident and consequent investigation. A state representative later cited the case when a state gun control law was passed six years later (per this article), but this seems like a passing mention. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Crime, Events, and Washington. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event led to legislation, even if the mention of the original event was brief in context of the legislation. Between the in-depth coverage of the event and the eventual lasting effect, I would consider it notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is sigcov in this academic article from 2015 [8] which seems pretty good and analytical about the case and its impact. ~~Weak keep~~ unless I can find more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There also appears to be significant coverage (maybe only of the perpetrator? I can't tell, he had some notability as a creator outside of the crime. it covers the game development which due to timing i believe may intersect with the murder) in Designers & Dragons by Shannon Appelcline. So keep probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a relatively lengthy description of the circumstances surrounding the murder in a debate on gun rights from 2013 as an example of lasting coverage [9] Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also several paragraphs from the NYT in 2013. [10] PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times and NYT articles on the gun control debate that you cite aren't significant coverage – there are only a couple paragraphs dedicated to the crime. Bridget (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you define as "significant coverage"? Per WP:SIGCOV it is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'd say several paragraphs counts, yeah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are both lengthy articles that briefly touch upon multiple crimes, including Batten's murder, alongside each other. They do not look to me like they"[address] the topic directly and in detail" per WP:SIGCOV. Bridget (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Touching upon multiple crimes doesn't have much effect on whether it is sigcov. Criminology books regularly cover multiple crimes and that doesn't make the coverage not sigcov. A sentence is plainly a trivial mention, a short paragraph is not enough, I think multiple paragraphs is sigcov... It definitely does address the topic directly and in detail. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the results of the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Melissa Batten. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by PARAKANYAA and Anonrfjwhuikdzz, especially McNamara (2014–2015). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash (2015)

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

One of the sources is duplicated, that means 3 sources support the article, and the 4th source quite literally does not state what is said. This article is not notable enough. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by multiple reliable sources, including Human Rights Watch, Iraq Body Count, and ReliefWeb, all of which cover the Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash. The fact that one source is listed twice doesn’t change the reliability of the information. This event is significant and has been reported by independent sources. Deleting the article over this issue is not justified. DataNomad (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2/4 of your citations should be on this page, and 2 is too little. Furthermore, this is an incredibly insignificant clash which could easily be included somewhere else. Setergh (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't appear to meet WP:NEVENT guidelines for sustained or in-depth coverage in multiple sources. I don't see why this is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 West Sussex County Council election

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

It's too soon to know if there even will be County Council elections for West Sussex, since there's a massive reorganization going on. A draft exists if this election comes to pass. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and too soon. Lots of newly created 2026 council elections that would be better stored as drafts until coverage comes up. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pires against Camargos

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

Note tag placed for more than a years. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Even the pt.wiki article lacks reliable sources, the "Aventuras na História" website is much more a curiosity website than an academic source. Lacks in-depth documentation. Svartner (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Nebraska gubernatorial election

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

This article doesn’t have enough reliable sources focusing on the subject and thus it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Draft:2026 Vermont gubernatorial election also shows that other Wikipedians thing strong sourcing is needed for an election article. 2600:387:15:5111:0:0:0:9 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only because sources will exist, but current sources show some coverage of this election, beyond just WP:ROUTINE. Vermont is different, since that draft was declined as none of those sources relate to the actual election, just governor popularity. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because eventually there will be enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. JTZegers (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm wondering if the nominator did a WP:BEFORE search; I find it highly unlikely that there are zero sources in existence for an article about an election. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found [11] and [12]. Not THAT much but still non-routine coverage that seems significant Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found only this - granted it’s stronger then the coverage of the Vermont election, but it seems most sources aren’t talking about this election in depth yet. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am the same as the nominator IP, this dynamic IP stuff is annoying. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much doubt that this election will get coverage, even if it's not there yet. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that still seems like TOOSOON, doesn’t it? That’s why Draft:2026 Vermont gubernatorial election got declined. Wikipedia can wait for their to be better sourcing. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments of JTZegers. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of this article (and other similar ones), there are numerous articles specifically about this election. I won’t lie and say it’s strong, but unlike the one in Vermont (which keeps getting brought up), about half the articles focus on Nebraska. The references for the Vermont article only have a footnote about the Vermont elections. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live Earth concert, Washington, D.C.

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

Cannot find any reliable secondary sources that cover this concert. (The 2 sources listed in the article are both primary) ApexParagon (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seemingly non-notable campaign event without WP:LASTING coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 European Taekwondo Championships

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted back in 2022. Same issues still apply, but an editor continues to recreate the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly block the editor in question for adding un-sourced content. JTZegers (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I feel that there is a chance for more sources to exist, but through newspapers.com all I got was one mention that is at least somewhat decent coverage. Ping if sources are found but does not seem like enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no different from the other 26 European Taekwondo Championships. I think the information on the website www.taekwondodata.com is sufficient. If additional sources are needed, is it not possible to request additional sources, not to delete this page? Deleting this page or blocking me is a non-solution. To write something about this page, I think you should take a look at the world taekwondo championship pages or other continental taekwondo tournaments. Many of them have been created this way.Pehlivanmeydani

Battle of Hamek

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

This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the user has been caught on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/). It's quite clear that the user might not be working in Wikipedia's interests, as per https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1g9hn3g/can_somebody_give_me_names_of_battles_between_the/ where they seem to be wanting Kurdish victories for some sort of "edit". This also happened during the Iran–Iraq War, which is an incredibly well documented event, therefore I'm unsure why there would be no mention of this battle. Setergh (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This is a historical battle, not legendary. I intend to expand the article and add appropriate sourcing to support its notability. Zemen (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. - The battle happened during Iran Iraq War, If this engagement were real and notable, It would be almost certainly be mentioned in reliable sources covering the war in detail. Additionally the Article lacks of reliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@R3YBOl Are you aware that many incidents and genocides involving Kurds remain undocumented and largely unknown to writers and historians? This video features Najmadin Shukr himself speaking about the battle. Why do you think he has articles across multiple languages of Wikipedia? It's largely because of this battle. What writer or historian would easily uncover a battle that took place in a remote, desolate village. especially during a time when larger conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war, were dominating attention. Zemen (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A youtube video of the person supposedly involved in the battle mentioning it is still not a reliable source. The argument of the Iran-Iraq War dominating attention and therefore meaning this battle gets none is absurd, especially when there is not a single source I could find that wasn't affiliated with the Kurds (at least not a reliable one) about such an insane victory. If this battle was known to be real, at least a few people would briefly mention the battle, but this seems to have never happened. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The video is from facebook, not yt. It features Najmadin, the commander in the battle. I know it is not a reliable source, and I'm still working on finding a credible version or a copy from a trusted place, or atleast find a source. but for now, I support deletion. Zemen (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Najmadin Shukr Rauf where the conflict is mentioned. We can’t have encyclopedia articles based on vague, unscholarly and highly partisan eulogies. Mccapra (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra The battle is already mentioned in the page of Najmadin Shukr Rauf, Yet still cited by unreliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree there aren’t enough reliable independent sources to support a standalone article about the battle. That’s a different thing to saying the encyclopedia should not make any mention of the battle at all because we can’t even be sure it happened. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Radwan 1828

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

Only one source that doesn't look RS (a site named yazidis.info that doesn't even exist anymore) and also very POV language ("because if they would not have won the whole Yazidi Population would have been destroyd" [sic]) and unsourced claims that could be controversial ("Before the Battle eyewitnesses said that the Kurds attacked the Yazidis many times there taking them as Sex Slaves and killing them") Laura240406 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything to back this up in the search links. I tried taking "1828" off and seeing what it found but it's nothing relevant. If this topic is real, "Battle of Radwan" is not its correct name. Draft was rejected 4 times at AfC but unilaterally promoted to an article anyway. Given that the article says little, can prove even less, is strongly POV and is borderline incoherent with copious grammatical errors, I think this can be disposed of without any fear of losing anything of value. Even if there is a topic here, it would be far better to start from scratch working from some actual sources not a defunct blog that doesn't really say much or even point to anywhere else to find out more. I'd oppose returning it to draft as there is no sign of even the germ of a valid article here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reviewed this at AfC like a week ago, it was almost entirely LLM generated with only that Yazidi source. Given that nothing else to support this has come up since I'm not convinced that this even really happened. Even then, if this did in fact happen, it certainly does not fulfill WP:GNG if the only thing supporting its existence is that sort-of blog. I'm also strongly opposing draftifying as it is just wasting everyone's time for the original creator to move it back despite repeated declines. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not WP:NPOV and only source appears WP:QUESTIONABLE. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali. cyberdog958^Talk 23:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:G5, I am certain the creator is a sock of MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs) See SPI. Aintabli (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU results from the SPI, notes that the accounts are technically unrelated, but just a week or so ago, Doritoboritoa121 (talk · contribs) drafted this same article on their userpage citing the same sources. I'm unsure if this is a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY, but this is extremely suspicious. Aintabli (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one source, not coming up online... various type edits needed... Tolozen (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination this article does not meet WP:RS, the sources are unreliable and biased (also only one of the sources are available) DataNomad (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one source, this article was sloppily written. There is no real reason to keep it unless more RSes can be obtained. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Ʀasteem (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lacks reliable sources and contains biased language, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not getting media attention, then it fails WP:GNG. We can't make election articles solely based on database entries. Our basis of creating articles is only if someone else wrote about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2007_Santa_Cruz,_Laguna_local_elections to 2010 Laguna local elections, 2019 Majayjay local elections to 2019 Laguna local elections, and 2022 Majayjay local elections to 2022 Laguna local elections. If "Local elections are not getting much media attention", and our standard is WP:GNG, then at the very least the best that can be done is redirect this to provincial-level elections. Granted 2010 and 2019 election articles leave much to be desired, and perhaps it'll be hard to find WP:RS on 2010 elections now due to WP:LINKROT, but 2019 can still be done, and in 2025, Laguna has the most competitive gubernatorial race in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Lupului minibus train collision

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Romania. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added several sources referring to this accident, which seems to have gotten quite a bit of coverage in the local (and even national) press. Turgidson (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Jajarkot bus accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. The only retrospective coverage I can find is one sentence where it describes the response as only nominal. Everything else that comes up for me covers a different bus crash in Jajarkot from 2021. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Nepal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Villa Canales bus disaster

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find coverage in English or Spanish beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete: The above stated reason conforms with wiki standards and I find myself agreeing with their reasoning. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion and Massacre of Kurds in Anatolia 1914

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

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK about the Armenian genocide. Only uses a single source and has placed heavy WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in favor of the Ottomans in its essay like structure. Was declined multiple times through the AfC process but was moved to the mainspace by the page creator anyways so coming to AfD instead of draftifying. cyberdog958^Talk 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Events, History, Military, and Turkey. cyberdog958^Talk 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under g5 as pretty explicitly involvingPolitics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan. Creator not extended confirmed. Nothing salvageable in the text.Their deaths were not merely the result of passive victimhood...self-inflicted suffering — a direct consequence of political short-sightedness, opportunistic violence, and tribal ambition} Wow. That's not NPOV. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 20:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete not enough sources (an estimated 600,000 Kurds., well, source?), and undue weight. Also agree with GLL for arbitration reasons. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT virtually nothing in this article is accurate. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Polemic and POV. No way to know how much of it is correct. Seems like the Draft was rejected at AfC twice. Also the weird fragment"(O’Ballance, 1996)" makes me wonder whether this was copied from somewhere else although the Copyvio detector doesn't think so. No point in returning it to draft. If there is a topic here then it would be better to find some Reliable Sources and start from scratch using those. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: There are similar citations with the same name in the book that the article cites as a source, but I couldn’t find any direct copying from the available preview of the text in Google Books. cyberdog958^Talk 23:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: see also the deletion discussion of Battle of Radwan 1828 (written by the same user as this one) Laura240406 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:G5, I am certain the creator is a sock of MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs) See SPI. Aintabli (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a similar problem that Battle of Radwan 1828 has. While this article is not written as sloppily, it overly relies on one source so has a notability problem. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taquan Air Flight 20

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

Per failure of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE fairly unknown incident with little to no continued coverage. lolzer3k (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Alaska. lolzer3k (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained non-routine continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident, and during the release of the preliminary report. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a WP:CASESTUDY or any type of historical event that's being revisited by secondary sources. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to either Taquan Air § Accidents and incidents or de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver § Accidents and incidents, where the accident is mention in these sections. Looking at the existing sources, I can see some chunks of WP:N-passing, such as decent WP:SIGCOV. However, the fact that much of the article qualifies for the fifth criteria for WP:PRIMARY and lacking a lasting impact makes the retention of this article seemed dubious. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Mile

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

No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and any WP:LASTINGEFFECT. Feels like a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and even WP:BIO1E Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, Events, and Africa. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Bengali teacher recruitment movement

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

It is not a significant event, unlike other movements, this is not as significant and also similar protests happen every day, check West Bengali and East Bengali (Bangladeshi) newspapers and read them, such events happen everyday but not every movement deserves a article unless the movement is significant and remembered even after one month of the protest/riot/movement/uprising. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and West Bengal. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Show me how this is relevant and enough for a article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each and every sentence here is supported by a reliable source. 14 sources are enough for this short article. Somajyoti ✉ 12:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Explain properly how It's enough for a separate article, similar movements have occurred every day with even 40 sources and news channels mentioning them, what matters is relevance and then notability, check 2018 Bangladesh quota reform movement, it left a result and impact, did this movement leave a similar impact? Regular clashes and movements against type of teachers have also occurred 30 times in Bangladesh in only November 2024, give a proper explanation. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is undoubtedly a notable and meaningful event. Protests like this don’t happen every day. Incidents like this don’t occur daily in West Bengal. If they do happen and newspapers report them-that is, they can be cited from reliable sources-then separate articles will certainly be created from them. Here, the deaths of two people and mentions of many others being injured are included and for this short article, fourteen sources have been cited which is sufficient. If other editors add more text to the article, then they will surely add more sources as well. Somajyoti ✉ 12:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do, in such a massive area with previous incidents of unrest, protests can occur, please say how this left a impact, then I will be convinced after you show its impact and relevance. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Vandalism Somajyoti ✉ 20:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Politics, and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's difficult to fully ascertain whether this had a lasting impact in Bangladesh as I don't speak the language. That said, the articles cited and machine translated articles seem to point to in-depth coverage. Per WP:PRESERVE, this article should be kept and improved. @User:Somajyoti a more descriptive may be helpful for english wikipedia's audience which is likely not too familiar with protests in Bangladesh. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was in West Bengal, not Bangladesh, can you translate the sources? Plus if anyone shows how this movement was impactful, please say, I'll be convinced. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Somajyoti passes WP:GNG.Major event in West Bengal.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 textbooks criticism

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

Insignificant and irrelevant unless proven otherwise, this kind of events can happen, it happens every year, textbooks can be criticised, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article also has issues with its quality and literally every year and even day, textbooks are criticised, this type of events are not suitable to stay in Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - You have failed to understand that the article is not relevant. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet Why do you Keep vote, when you are deletion nominator of this article. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 05:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you can vote for your own nomination (it's implied you vote to delete it). Anyway, this seems notable from a first glance, although the page name should be less generic and there are issues with tone and style. jolielover♥talk 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced, though it does need to be copy-edited and the title should be changed to something more descriptive. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added strikethrough on nominator's bolded vote. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. This is an aspect of Education in Bangladesh. Lone incidents do not need to be split off into their own articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my cursory examination of the article, and the nominators failure to provide a reason, as stated by Cortador. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot PROD this since it has been deleted twice. Sources seem to all be same as those from prior discussions, nothing has changed to indicate more notability. Still falls under WP:TOOSOON Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Manipur. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: once we get closer to the election the page can be created at YEAR Manipur Legislative Assembly Election but there is no reason to create a vague page like this with no certain information. I could (but won't) create the page 2036 US Presidential Election because it will happen, but there is no content for it. And the fact that this has been deleted twice and recreated twice along with similar articles for other Next Indian elections is why salt. Moritoriko (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:G4. We AFD'd this 2 times already.Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a way of seeing what it looked like at the time of its previous deletions? How do we know that G4 applies? Moritoriko (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be the same, the second source was published after the previous discussion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, possible Salting so it can't be recreated yet again at the wrong time. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 massacres of Syrian Druze

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

Currently, I believe that this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) since information about the killings has been added into that article. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is not agreed upon and widely sourced as in the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites, the reporting always puts it as a detail and not the main event (again as in the Alawites' case). While the events are devastating, I do not see them as more than a section in the Southern clashes article, and also we should refrain from solely using SOHR for these.

- RamiPat (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the reporting puts it as a detail? Many of the citations already in the article talk about it as the main event. It's also causing ripple effects in Israel and many Israeli articles are talking about it as the main event. E.g. 1 and [-- 2A05:BB80:32:B913:5D54:1EA:B2D5:200E (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't call it a massacre if 5 civilians died alongside 35 Hijri loyalists. I agree with asclepias. Most of the information is either reused or is redundant enough to be put in Druze in Syria and/or Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) TedKekmeister (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The scope is valid, but the name could be changed to something more reflective of reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its current form blatantly misrepresents what happened like the usual Assadist propaganda that has been in Wikipedia since 2013. Daseyn (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just change the name like it is in southern Syria clashes JaxsonR (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clashes denotes a clash between the military of one side and another. But here we also see targeted killings of civillians which are reported on by RS and in enough quantity to justify a separate page Genabab (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Skitash (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add another comment, the SOHR numbers state the total number of executed civilian Druze as 10. I have to mention that there are 42 Druze that were ambushed in Suwayda Governorate on the Damascus-Suwayda motorway, but the SOHR does not mention wether they were fighters, civilians, or a mix of both. But the news outlets that do specify mention only fighters (like France 24). I do believe the civilians killed were massacred, but they were not mass massacres for a separate article on them like the massacres of Alawites, which that article is also under discussion to be merged with "Western Syria clashes (March 2025–present)"

- RamiPat (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NEVENT is satisfied. Delete arguments so far are not policy-based. Title or potential NPOV violations do not justify deletion. Redundant forks require merge discussions, not AfD discussions.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I disagree; WP:REDUNDANTFORK has been used in previous deletion discussions, whether for deletion (this, this, or this), merging (this, this, or this), or redirecting (this, this, or this), thus I believe it is a valid argument to use. Considering that the two articles' scopes are very similar and this article's relevant content already was moved into there (and this article only has 3 paragraphs about the killings, so it can be fully merged without much trouble anyway), I think that this article is redundant. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to being a POV content fork, the article is a complete hoax. No reliable source described the events as a "massacre" or claimed that Druze civilians were targeted. Majority of the Syrian Druze are opposed to the pro-Israeli Druze seperatist groups of Hikmat al-Hijri.

The page, which was a crystal ball created on 1 May 2025, contradicted media reports that Druze factions had reached de-escalation agreements with the Syrian government by then. For example, BBC reported on the ceasefire and end of the clashes on 1 May 2025. The BBC report's summary of the clashes during 28-30 April 2025 made no mention of any "massacre".

Furthermore, several civilians are getting killed in Israeli air-strikes across Syria. (1, 2). Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Syrian coup d'état attempt

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

To reword what I previously wrote in the article's talk page, I believe that this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS: it doesn't elaborate much on the subject (i.e. what exactly the plot was, who was involved in planning it, where was it planned to occur in, etc.), and since there doesn't seem to have been follow-up information about it (no WP:LASTING coverage), it looks to just be an example of WP:RECENTISM.

Alternatively, it could be merged into articles like Anas Khattab (career section), Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), or Syrian transitional government (possible reforms section), but its vague enough that I don't know if it would be appropriate. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A literal coup attempt that was covered in the news. Scuba 03:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:NOTNEWS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  by that metric we shouldn't have any election articles, and we should delete the January 6 United States Capitol attack article since wellthat was just a news story and we're not news! Scuba 13:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  That’s obviously not the argument here. The second bulletpoint at WP:NOTNEWS is the relevant one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Syrian transitional government. Not really that notable. Could be like one sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scuba Shaneapickle (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interest to this article, please give some time to improving the article. Great achievement (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NOTNEWS doesn't mean "never cover news", RECENTISM is about articles focussing too much on parts that are recent, which doesn't apply here because the event itself is recent, and a lack of details is not a reason for deletion because AfD isn't cleanup. Cortador (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that it lacks details because there aren't enough sources or something, the problem is that sources do not elaborate on this topic at all. Unless Anas Khattab elaborates in the future, there's nothing that could be added (unless this is supposed to remain a WP:PERMASTUB)
Additionally:
- WP:PERSISTENCE, which says "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." likely applies because all sources about this coup plot were published around April 16-17 (2 days total)
- WP:INDEPTH, which says "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing.", likely applies because sources (barring North Press Agency) mention that this statement came as part of a larger series of statement about the Ministry of Interior's future plans.
- Maybe also WP:LASTING, but it might require more time to assess historical significance. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - possibly significant but needs more sources. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that it lacks sources, it's that the article's topic isn't significant; the only info sources collectively say is that Anas Khattab announced (on 16 April) that the Syrian Ministry of Interior stopped a coup plot devised by former regime officers. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

2016 Majayjay local elections

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

Declined PROD with promise to improve refs. Added references do not indicate anything more than results or routine coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 West Bengal Panchayat elections

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

WP:TOOSOON, no sources seem to focus on the election specifically. Could be re-created once election gets coverage later on Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not only too soon, but "it's" typos are too many to fix. Bearian (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 West Bengal Municipal election

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

WP:TOOSOON, nothing I can find covers this. Was previously moved to draft Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon and no reliable, significant coverage of the future election available. Good candidate for WP:PROD. Not sure why there would be a section about voter turnout in an election that is 2 years away. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. @Yoblyblob I think these types of pages are good candidates for WP:PROD or WP:MULTIAFD so AfD doesn't get too cluttered.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz I will tag these with PROD in the future Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Siliguri Municipal Corporation election

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON, no coverage about the actual election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree this is too soon and I can't find any reliable coverage about the election. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Central Java gubernatorial election

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

WP:TOOSOON, two opinion polls have been conducted and all potential candidates are WP:OR as far as i can tell Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No SIGCOV, TOOSOON.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very similar to Next Trinidad and Tobago general election, the election is not for another fourish years. There is not a notable reason to include this page this early. It would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election its own page. Agree with assessments that it is WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and Too soon for create this article where it is not yet certain whether the candidate will advance in the election (Fails WP:V). Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 02:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's hard to define when something is too soon, but I know it when I see it. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Generally, its not good for us to carry articles for elections years in advance. It's often too soon and leads to some crystal-esque behavior.

-Samoht27 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Bali gubernatorial election

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

Declined PROD with the reasoning that it has been scheduled for 2029. Does not show significant coverage and is WP:TOOSOON Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting @Everywiki as an article creator Indonesianinfo2 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting please see notice, now. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable event that is TOOSOON, no coverage and any content about the current position holder is CRYSTALBALL speculation assuming they are running, so that part could be challenged as un-encyclopedic and not verfiied, and then we're left with an empty article describing the date about something happening in the future, which always fails TOOSOON. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very similar to Next Trinidad and Tobago general election, the election is not for another fourish years. There is not a notable reason to include this page this early. It would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and Too soon for create this article where it is not yet certain whether the candidate will advance in the election (WP:V). Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 02:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Indian general election in Pondicherry

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

Fails WP:gng , wp:n Jabba550 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment noting that the page started with just a link and has had more info put on however I had put the non-AfD tag on the page (The one that removes the page after 7 days of the tag being there) and the page creator removed it Jabba550 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No case has been made why the existing sources are insufficient. Cortador (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you can't just state a rule and then provide no justification. I'm willing to change me vote if evidence is presented. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on a technical basis: I'm not sure what reason is given for deletion. A single election can be notable. The sources aren't great, but appear to barely show notable results. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Syrian coup d'état attempt

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

To copy and paste what I wrote on the article's talk page:

"I believe that this article should be deleted because, per WP:V, this article's topic lacks enough coverage from reliable sources:

The events described in the article itself only come from one source, and only one other source is used in the article which supports the claim that a coup happened on 30 November
- FactNews-UA is referring to HTS taking Maarat al-Numan
- North Press Agency specificlly says "unconfirmed reports of a military coup in Damascus".
- Even Turkiyetoday (the other source I mentioned) addresses the subject in a more speculative than objective tone
I didn't originally know when first typing this, but there already were discussions on Wikipedia on the article from The Jewish Press: [13] and [14]
- The users in the first link concluded that the validity of The Jewish Press's article (which is almost solely the source of information in this article) is dubious because no other source reported on it (such as SOHR, Anadolu Agency, Al Jazeera English, or Al-Monitor)
- The users in the second link concluded that the specific article likely was an example of WP:WSAW, though they said that The Jewish Press shouldn't be classified as WP:GUNREL

Thus, the subject of this Wikipedia article (a coup attempt by Hossam Louka in Syria on 30 November) doesn't appear to be reported by sufficient reliable and verifiable sources, making this article violate WP:V." Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition Honestly, it should stay because I can understand that the creators of the sources have lied, but it doesn't mean that there is no evidence (videos, images) that prove otherwise. They are the sources. I'm going to try to find more sources, but they exist and they are real. Farcazo (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to clarify what I think the sources and the article are trying to say. Basically one part of Assad's military may or may not have tried to take control of the government in order to more strongly fight against the rebels but another part of Assad's military stopped them? Separately I am not convinced this is a notable enough part of the general fighting going on at the time for it to get its own article. Moritoriko (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete I wish there was more information out there on this coup, since I remember hearing rumors of it when it was happening as I watched Assad's regime collapse in real time on LiveUA map, but I think the consensus then was it was made up and didn't actually happen.

The only actual source I could find that talked about it was The Jewish Press which is obviously biased against Syria, but it is also a minor newspaper for orthodox Jews in Brooklyn and I'm not convinced they have stringent editorial oversight and fact-checking.

So either someone finds more sources where I couldn't or this article should be deleted. Scuba 13:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this article falls under the WP:Hoax policy. The article presents this 'coup attempt' as fact, but sources such as North Press Agency and Türkiye Today classify it as unconfirmed reports/rumors. I add to this discussion the investigation carried out by the Syrian fact-checking group Verify-Sy, which classified these allegations of a coup attempt as false. 1 Vrostky (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Sri Lankan presidential election

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

WP:TOOSOON, election will probably take place in ~5 years, cannot find anything on the next election specifically. Not a language I speak so if someone who knows much about the language could see what they can find. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; as you mentioned, there aren't many sources about the election itself as it's just too far away, much WP:CRYSTAL vibes, but let's see what other editors think. Not Wlwtn (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was originally titled "2029 Sri Lankan presidential election", but was renamed "Next Sri Lankan presidential election" following a discussion on the article's talk page. I wish to draw attention to the following deletion discussion and the comments made therein, for reference. The same principles apply to this article. Sri Lanka has held regular elections since gaining independence and regular presidential elections since the first in 1982. In this context, the application of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL is somewhat ambiguous. The current president is eligible to seek a second term and under the Constitution of Sri Lanka, is authorised to call an election after completing four years of his current and first term. Regardless of whether this takes place, the next presidential election must be held no earlier than one month and no later than two months before the expiry of the incumbent's five-year term. At present, this article and several others are maintained as future elections, i.e., Next United Kingdom general election and Next Indian general election. The following categories are maintained for this pupose: Category:Future elections in Asia, Category:Future elections, etc. Therefore, this article should be treated in the same manner. It could be redirected to List of Sri Lankan presidential elections, but it would not be a fair position as references/sources have been provided to support maintaining this article and also provide historical context. QEnigma talk 04:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very similar to Next Trinidad and Tobago general election, the election is not for another fourish years. There is not a notable reason to include this page this early. It would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is standard practice to create articles for next elections as soon as the current election is over, even if the date isn't known e.g. Next United Kingdom general election was created on the day of the 2024 United Kingdom general election and survived an Afd with an avalanche of Keep votes. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Delete per WP:TOOSOON, though this could obviously change if the sources are published that solidify notability. Though that will not likely happen for at least several more years, which is also exactly why WP:TOOSOON applies. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, case of WP:TOOSOON. Dan arndt (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Marilao local elections

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

Cannot find anything through searches for Marilao 2025 elections, lots of social media posts and that is about it. Found page while going through NPP backlog Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Trinidad and Tobago general election

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

WP:TOOSOON. The election won't take place for another 5 years; we don't even know who the candidates are. Obviously can't find any sources talking about this upcoming election. ApexParagon (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage at all. Definitely too soon Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Trinidad and Tobago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definately WP:TOOSOON, and absolutely no sources or WP:SIGCOV as of now. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be WP:TOOSOON, there are no links at all, it is a sentence long and that one sentence states that the election will not be in another five years. Maybe once there are sources to support it to bolster its notability it can be put on but this would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election a page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election

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

Article consists of local news outlets and social media posts exclusively. No sort of state-wide coverage sources that would make this notable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Marlborough is too small for its mayor to be presumptively notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Individual mayoral elections fall well below the bar. Ravenswing 04:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small-city elections are almost never notable. Unless there are truly unusual events, they don't receive substantial coverage, just run-of-the-mill coverage in local sources. They also don't tend to have sustained coverage. This election does not seem to be an exception from these general rules. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to fall short of notability. If every single mayor election from every town is included, this will create page bloat. Unless there is something particularly special or notable about this election, it shouldn't be included. Also, there are not a lot of prominent RSes talking about this election either. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete 2+ years have passed and this was not even notable when it first was possible of becoming notable. There is nothing new that is going to be reported on related to this small town election, not now, and not down the road. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Mapandan local elections

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

Non-notable local election for municipality of under 40,000. Sources are primary and no significant coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage about this. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Mapandan local elections

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

No cited sources cover the election at much length, and was not able to find much through searching. Election for small municipality of under 40,000, and relies on social media sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page author has placed a comment on this discussion talk page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Wigtown District Council election

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

Taking to AfD over PROD because hard to find sources. I could not find anything from searches in this seemingly small district area. Rationale is a non-notable election in a local area Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard to find sources," such is the way with Scottish local elections. https://www.electionscentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Scottish-District-Elections-1977.pdf contains the results to the election. As with the 1980 page, I guess ward results, or a newspaper article from the time could also be included. These elections, although small in electors, are very important to Scotland's political story, especially in rural areas. Scotland's rural areas have a history of voting for non-partisan local independents, that is only now being challenged. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note I am willing to improve these pages, if that is what you are getting at... SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SpeysideWikipedian sources should indicate significant and lasting coverage, which is important with local elections more than anything. Not every small election necessarily deserves a page. Feel free to improve the article with coverage that shows that, but primary sources with only results would not count towards that. This applies to your comment on the other AfD too Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I do not think that is a valid reason to delete this page. Leave the page up and myself and others can improve them. Leave it with a needs sources tag and people such as @Stevie fae Scotland will help improve them I'm sure. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to improve every pre 1995 local election page with a similar structure + ward results + newspaper/article as 1974 Tweeddale District Council election would that be sufficient? SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that page shows significant coverage meeting GNG in my opinion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, work needs done for every page is what I am saying, this is a large project. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my argument is not every one of these small elections deserves a page. They could also be merged into a wider local election page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. Where would you draw the line though? Does each Glaswegian council election deserve its own page just because more people happen to live in Glasgow? How would such a move to a single page be implemented? SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a precedent for this elsewhere? If the only way these results can be preserved on the wiki is for a mass merger to happen then surely there is an example from another country perhaps? SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also a wider discussion amongst other local election editors is needed too. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure of other precedent, but it is a solution since these small elections are seemingly not notable on their own. Going on WP:NOTDATABASE, just because there are results available for something, does not mean that it deserves a page of it's own. A merge to a page for elections, in this case to a 1977 Scottish local elections in Dumfries and Galloway page would potentially establish notability for all these elections as a whole Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would need more input from others before deciding. If that is the way to establish notability I am happy to merge lesser notable pages into a regional district results page. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. I unfortunately don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive any more but a simple search without even looking at any pages shows the importance of the district elections at the time - it was front page news. The results for individual district councils were carried in national newspapers. Unfortunately, the BNA doesn't have any papers from Dumfries and Galloway in May 1977 to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 164 district councils at 2024 United Kingdom local elections#District councils, all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. It should probably be kept. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Wigtown District Council election

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

Seemingly completely uncontested election that I could not find substantitive info on through searches, only vague references. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Seemingly completely uncontested election"? Some of the wards were contested, just not by members of a formal political party, only by independents. Having only independents standing was pretty common in rural areas in Scotland throughout this time period. Perhaps ward results could be added to indicate that some wards were contested.

I understand there is limited sources available, but https://www.electionscentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Scottish-District-Elections-1980.pdfcontains the results to the election. Probably also included in regional/national newspapers of the time but, alas, most archives are locked behind a paywall.

Therefore, I think it should be kept, unless you want to also delete most other Scottish local election pages, for rural areas, from after the reorganisation to ~1995. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not presumed coverage for local elections of small municipality areas, especially uncontested ones Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regional newspapers would have something if not result coverage from the time. I managed to find coverage about Moray Council results from 1984, albeit Moray is larger. Obviously would take time to do this every page but would be possible. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. I unfortunately don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive any more but a simple search without even looking at any pages shows the importance of the district elections at the time - it was front page news. The results for individual district councils were carried in national newspapers. Unfortunately, the BNA doesn't have any papers from Dumfries and Galloway in May 1980 to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 164 district councils at 2024 United Kingdom local elections#District councils, all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. It should probably be kept. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election

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

No evidence of notability, all I can find on this are old sources from 2023 election. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small-city elections are almost never notable. Unless there are truly unusual events, they don't receive substantial coverage, just run-of-the-mill coverage in local sources. They also don't tend to have sustained coverage. This election does not seem to be an exception from these general rules. I would also support deletion of 2023 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election for the same reason - nothing but run-of-the-mill local coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to fall short of notability. If every single mayor election from every town is included, this will create page bloat. Unless there is something particularly special or notable about this election, it shouldn't be included. Also, there are not a lot of prominent RSes talking about this election either. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Piperi

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

None of the current sources even mention Piperi. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely a minor conflict. Agletarang (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything searching the title. Fails WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG.ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bagroiser

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

This looks like a hoax. Completely unsourced, and searches on gbooks, JSTOR, advanced google search, news, and more bring up literally nothing. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and North Macedonia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It hits in an Iranian dictionary for some reason [15] I suppose that's close-ish to North Macedonia, but not quite... I'm not sure what this unsourced stub is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Won't claim to know every tradition associated with Marian feasts, but I've never seen this one before. A bit of Googling coaxed their lazy AI to claim that it had something to do with the Assumption, but that's absolutely nothing that aligns with this subject online. The only other reference I could find to this was the Wikidata item, created in 2014, so after the article. I don't know if it's a hoax, but it's definitely not notable based on English-language sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given it's a non-English speaking festival I'm thinking there may be alternative spellings. The closest I can find is "Успение на Пресвета Богородица, Uspenie na Presveta Bogorodica" also celebrated in August and celebrating Mary (source:Public holidays in North Macedonia) - which is covered by Assumption of Mary page. SallyRenee (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sidhi bus accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Looking for coverage beyond initial reports only turned up unrelated accidents. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Madhya Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. Just routine news coverage - WP:NOTNEWS Asteramellus (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ROTM news story, fails WP:NEVENT. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find myself agreeing with the above considering the weak coverage. Try finding new articles if you want to reinforce your position, potentially in other languages. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ségou bus-truck collision

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find coverage beyond initial reports. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Africa. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Egypt bus accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Searching for sources after 2015 only turned up other bus crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 O'Hare International Airport runway incursion

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

Non-notable aviation incident with zero loss of life and no lasting coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Near-misses don't generally merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and Illinois. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing notable here...not even sure there's enough to add to the incidents section for O'Hare.

nf utvol (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to O'Hare International Airport § Major accidents and incidents: WP:LASTING effects and WP:SECONDARY and/or WP:RS sources are lacking in this article. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Flight 101

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated, which is made all the more evident as the Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission did not issue a single recommendation as a result of this accident (Recomendaciones sobre seguridad – page 23). WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Spain. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:News article. Not a WP:CASESTUDY or otherwise subject to any secondary coverage that indicates long-term significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ende Gelände 2020

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

Not special enough to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Environment, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of accidents and incidents involving the Tupolev Tu-134#1970s. Given the weakness of the keeps and the lack of lasting coverage. asilvering (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 512

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Plus, this incident is already covered in Lists of accidents and incidents involving the Tupolev Tu-134, so there is no need to have a separate article with almost 0 new information. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Jordan, and Russia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I found these sources on the matter: [16], [17], [18], [19]. The sources summarize the crash and circumstances (don't talk about investigation/public response since the crash was relatively minor), and seem to be enough to source a plane crash article, but I'll wait before making a decision. LastJabberwocky (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's a bad article at the moment, but I definitely think that it's expandable based on sources. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time that there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond real-time news. Wikipedia is not a collection of WP:News articles. Even if it were notable, there's no need for an event to have an article if it can be adequately covered in a list of similar events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Tupolev Tu-134 § 1970s: First two sources suggested above appears to be unreliable; source 3 is WP:PRIMARY, and I don't have full access to source 4 to verify. Either way, Flight 512 fails WP:NEVENT because it lacks a lasting effect. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you maybe right on the grounds that they don't give an encyclopedia-level analysis/investigation related to the plane crash. But, at least for the bureau source, it gives enough context for the crash, and I couldn't find any support against it. It was raised in these discussions but nothing definitive: Talk:Aviation accidents and incidents#Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A) and User_talk:Aviationwikiflight#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflot Flight 11. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Babarloi Dharna

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

Article is not providing the significant coverage. According to chatgpt.zero, 98% of article has been created from Artificial Intelligence. The protests details also provided in the Controversial canals project on Indus River's political developments section. Article also fails to pass the WP:GNG and also edited by only two users. Some text excerpted from Controversial canals project on Indus River and there is no sense to keep the article stand alone. Misopatam (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there may be concerns about AI involvement, Wikipedia's policies do not forbid using AI-generated text as long as the content complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies — especially verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. The subject of this article has been sourced from the reliable sources and doesn't fail WP:GNG. Meanwhile, some of the portion may be covered under the Controversial canals project on Indus River, but the details specific to the protests are substantial enough to merit a standalone article.The article can be improved by human copy editing, rather than deleted completely. Content that overlaps can be trimmed or consolidated, but the existence of partial duplication is not a enough reason for deletion under WP:ContentFork or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.If the article has capability, we prefer improving it, not deleting it. The topic is current and may attract more coverage over time and It serves readers seeking specific information, which may not be easily found elsewhere. Issues can be solved by cleanup, therefore I recommend improvement if necessary, not deletion. JogiAsad (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to merge the article in the Controversial canals project on Indus River, in which you can create a separate section named Protests and can write the required text in own words with Reliable and independent sources. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the suggestion to merge Babarloi Dharna into the "Controversial canals project on Indus River" article; because Babarloi Dharna is a specific protest or an event and significant enough on its own, meanwhile The Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests. While the two topics are related, they are distinct: Babarloi Dharna is a notable, standalone protest movement that received significant and enough independent media coverage, (i.e news articles, reports, studies, etc.). It is not merely a minor part of the broader canals project, but a major event with its own political and social impact. So therefore it deserves its own Wikipedia article based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specially WP:GNG — general notability guideline) and Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:N). Events with substantial coverage in reliable sources merit their own articles. Merging would diminish the independent significance of the Dharna.
I argue that:
The two topics are related, but not identical.
Babarloi Dharna is not merely a subtopic; it is a standalone notable event.WP:N
Merging would obscure the full coverage and importance of the Dharna, i.e. Sit-ins itself.
Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests
Merging would downplay an important social movement or event that has independent significance. WP:NOTMERGE.
JogiAsad (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cholistan Canal Project. Fails WP:NEVENT. Gheus (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your merge suggestion isn't relevant to this article. I have elaborated above in details. And it doesn't fails WP:NEVENT. JogiAsad (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article's title should be changed from Babarloi Dharna to Babarloi Sit-in because former title is not giving news results in search that is why it looks insignificant otherwise the protest has captured significant attention from notable news agencies. If the content of article is artificially generated than it can be easily rephrased or re-written. However, it should not be merged with Cholistan Canal Project as this article covers one the major political movements in the history of Pakistan. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why you have not fixed it or re write it. First improve the article than give the statement that now the problems have been fixed and than vote for the Keep. Misopatam (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm taking down your vote for now. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cmt.Issues have been fixed, further you can also fix it.
JogiAsad (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Controversial Canals on Indus River, or Cholistan Canal Project both articles are about the mega project (which has become controversial). It's important to pay attention to the details of a large infrastructure project that has sparked controversy. On the other hand, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in highlights a different social and political movement, which covers a public protest against these proposed controversial canal projects.

Combining the protest article with the project-related articles would mix up the topic of dissent with how that dissent is expressed, which isn't right. Just like the Faizabad sit-in is significant enough to have its own article, the Babarloi Dharna / Sit-in article is about the movement against those controversial topics and deserves the same treatment as a standalone article.It is an important civic response, complete with its own timeline, dynamics, leaders, and political effects. For these reasons, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in should have its own entry to keep the narrative clear and true to the essence of this protest movement. JogiAsad (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix the issues, updated the article as per current status. See page revisions. JogiAsad (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kemah (1515)

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

WP:GNG I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The sources cited in the article do not mention the siege.Iranian112 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Kemah, Erzincan#History: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [20][21][22] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kemah, Erzincan#History: Changing my vote to merge as the siege is surprisingly not mentioned by the town's Wikipedia article. I suggest discarding the municipality and governor's websites and keeping TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi when merging. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Ninh Bình

AfDs for this article:

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

Fundamentally based on 19th-century French colonial primary sources with no verification from independent or Vietnamese historical accounts. A thorough search finds no mention of the “Capture of Ninh Binh” in Vietnamese historiography or modern reliable sources. The article therefore relies entirely on colonial-era narratives, which are highly prone to bias, exaggeration, and imperialist framing, one look at the article and you’ll understand. Per WP:V, WP:HISTRS, and WP:NPOV historical topics must be supported by reputable, secondary sources and not solely colonial accounts. Without independent corroboration, this article promotes a one-sided, questionable version of history that does not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or notability standards. Therefore, deletion is the appropriate course. More detailed historical issues are explained further on the article’s Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsidersInsight (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Vietnam, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fully sourced. No issue with French colonial sources. Colonial-era narratives are reliable sources. The sources used are not primary, and independent corroboration is not required for WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It relies almost entirely on French colonial-era sources from the 1870s–1880s (Romanet du Caillaud, Charton, d’Estampes, Société académique indochinoise). Only two modern sources (Phạm 1985 and Short 2014) are cited, and neither independently corroborates the extraordinary claim (7 men capturing 1,700 soldiers). Per WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, such extraordinary historical claims require strong independent confirmation, which is missing here. Article currently gives a misleading sense of undisputed fact. OutsidersInsight (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 87

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as recreation of deleted material; in any case this is a relatively minor accident of no interest outside of standard accident investigation, except of course for those whose shipments were damaged or lost. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe it looks like CSD doesn't apply in this case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft was written off, and the crash was part of the record - for instance being mentioned again in articles on other crashes such as [23] [24] (those don't meet GNG for this crash, but the article meets GNG and the crash is well documented.) The previous AfD wasn't that well attended so speedy delete doesn't make sense here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft accident was caused by blockage of pitot tubes which has resulted in fatal plane accidents like Birgenair Flight 301 and Aeroperu Flight 603. Also, comparing it to the other FedEx accidents like FedEx Express Flight 630, it had more damage and more long-lasting importance. The entire plane was submerged in the Subic Bay. If you're going to delete this article, then delete almost all the FedEx accidents Wikipedia articles. They all have the same amount of notability as this one. We got plenty of sources and a full report. Plus, the accident report clearly listed recommendations and changes after this accident. The plane was also declared a hull loss with the entire plane being completely submerged and destroyed except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual merit, not based on other articles. Just because recommendations were issued doesn't mean that they were implemented. Can you prove that the accident actually led to changes in procedures and had lasting effects? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An event can also be notable without a lasting effect per wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA point 2, if the event had widespread coverage, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… and where is that re-analysis? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxtQv6zUuo. Also in the report it stated on page 158, that because of this accident, Boeing revised the MD-11 Flight Crew Operating Manual to provide additional guidance to flight crews. The guidance states that if any two of the following alerts are displayed simultaneously, the crew should use these alerts as valid indications to immediately refer to the “Airspeed Lost, Suspect, or Erratic” checklist: “SEL ELEV FEEL MAN”; “SEL FADEC ALTN’; “SEL FLAP LIM OVRD.” https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202Zaptain United (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is an unreliable source and the person who published the recreation of the event is not a subject-matter expert (see WP:SPS). Although there was a change in procedure (thank you for finding it), the coverage is still subpar and we're still lacking a secondary source which is required per WP:WHYN. Maybe as an alternative, the article could be merged into Pitot tube#Aircraft and accidents or FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?
FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global
FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce
I thought these were secondary sources? Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all first-hand news reports of the accident so they all qualify as primary sources. Secondary sources normally containanalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event based on primary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of information of this accident. Also, the DC-10 and MD-11 have had incidents involving anomalous airspeed indications. It was a problem affecting the aircraft like the bounce landing problem. It caused two different World Airways incidents and some minor incidents. It is clear that blockage of pitot tubes has affected those planes. What makes this accident different is that this was a hull loss and caused changes to prevent blockage of pitot tubes on Md-11 planes. I think it can stand on its own.https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202Zaptain United (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only real-time coverage, no retrospective analysis. Wikipedia is not a collection of news articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?
FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global
FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep WP:N, WP:V [25] [26] [27] [28] just a mention here. There are some more bits of analysis out there available. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source only mentions the accident as part of statistics and there’s no significant coverage; the second source contains no mention of the accident; the third is a database entry so it doesn’t establish notability; the fourth is better than the rest but still does not contain significant coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aviationwikiflight:, please learn what a secondary source is. All references in the nominated article are secondary sources. Aviation accident investigation bodies are indepenent of airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and are no primary sources. This applies to other articles you have nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Per WP:SECONDARY,A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Per WP:NOTNEWS,Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Sources 1,3,5, and 6 are all either primary or first-hand breaking news coverage of the event; sources 2 and 4 are tertiary as they're databases. None of these sources include any sort of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" based on primary sources. There are clearly zero sources in the article that are secondary (nor in the others that I nominated). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Montenegrin pro-government protests

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

Part of the 2022 Montenegrin crisis and doesn't have much significance to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Montenegro. A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion here, but deletion seems unnecessary, better to merge to 2022 Montenegrin crisis. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Montenegrin crisis: The infobox on that page is even titled pro-government protests so these seem to be more or less the same events. The page is also desperately in need of being updated so I might take that up. (or at least updating the language) Moritoriko (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, probably shouldn't be deleted but notable enough for mention in parent article. GoldRomean (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more look into the ATDs suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Meditation Day

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

I am not seeing any reliable-source secondary coverage of this UN General Assembly-declared awareness day for a pass of WP:GNG. Like the sources in the article, the sources in the WP:BEFORE search are all unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA churnalism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spirituality. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have so far found newspaper articles about a World Meditation Day in June in 1968, and on the 3rd Sunday of each month in 1988. Still looking for this one .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 1998 Commonwealth Games – Men's javelin throw

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

Non-notable javelin throw event, i was unable to find any sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We generally consider these event articles as valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long). If deleted this would be, I think, the only event in the history of the Commonwealth Games to not have an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sport of athletics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep per WP:NOLYMPIC"*Significant coverage is likely to exist for events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's", and this extends to most international Games and Championships as well. There is also SIGCOV in this specific instance to prove the point, e.g. "Silver lining as England team mount final push" or "Backley spurred on by upset". Lastly I'll just say that because this is a list article, per WP:NLIST sometimes lists can be kept because they're useful navigational aids without demonstrating notability. --Habst (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Habst. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Lists that are unsourced, single-sourced, or single primary sourced, existing as an exception to WP:NLIST which states,Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists.. This sort of mirrors Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

Review: Any exception[s], if actually allowed by consensus (depending on the list), need to be one of three, for Information, navigation, or Development. I am not sure an unsourced or poorly sourced break-away list containing the names of living people qualifies. Consideration, of course, has to be the membership criteria.

While attempting to validate a list, policies and guidelines should probably at least be considered. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists includes, "Citing sources":Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources.

Some editors may attempt to down-play the Notability guideline. The opening sentence states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The actual opening paragraph states,Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".

Wikipedia gauges notability and being "worthy of notice" by verifiability:All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Please note #2 and #3:

direct quotations,
material whose verifiability has been challenged,
material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

The note on numbers 2 and 3 is because any assumption of inherited or inherent notability is a fallacy. Alright, that's not the note, but true. Anyway, an article, or list, that remains published, either by silence on the subject, or even IAR, is subject to consensus and the fact that consensus can change.

The mention that other stuff exists is usually not a good thing to bring up at AFD. A good discussion for an exemption would be "valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long)." If a supposed parent article is not sourced or barely sourced, I am not open to considering a "valid split". I have ran across several of these. Articles like List of European Athletics Championships records has sources and also have many "splits" listed asdetails, which might be a consideration. There should be a link to the "main" article. Articles like European Running Championships with two sources counted as one and likely not advancing notability would not be a good candidate for consideration..

Summation: To claim exemption from notability or verifiability requires silence from other editors, IAR, that is dependent on consensus, and must consider the fact that consensus can change. Any silence ends when there is a challenge, so "likely to exist" becomes moot, and is satisfied by proof in the form of references, specifically inline citations. It would be better to supply a reference and the link to the main article to keep some editor from going on a crusade. It would be sad if the "history of the Commonwealth Games" were upset. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this AI? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend the addition of at least one reliable source to the article per WP:V. The present one is insecure.

Otr500, you need to abide by due process at AfD by providing a concise rationale that may include links to guidelines. I doubt if anyone will make time to read your input here, and the reaction by BeanieFan11 is understandable. Spartathenian (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added the above sources to the article, thanks. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Habst. Spartathenian (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Recommend immediate closure as the "keep" arguments and actions are policy-compliant, and the nomination reveals a lack of experience in subjects of this type. I would close it myself but for earlier involvement. Thanks. Spartathenian (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Struck. See below - Firstly, I do not understand the argument that this is a list article. It is an article about a single event in the athletics section of a single competition in a single year. I suppose it "lists" the distances thrown by competitors but that is not really a list so much as a demonstration that this subject only has database listing evidence. No, the piece about Backley's throw does not show that the event is independently notable. The games are notable, but the single event is a spin-off of the games article. There is no clear reason why that is necessary. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but it is not a results database, and that is all this page is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Years ago, it was decided to spin-off the results as otherwise the main page would get way too long. If deleted, this would be, out of the thousands of events in its history, the sole Commonwealth Games event missing an article. That would be nonsensical. If we're saying that its not encyclopedic they need to be discussed as a group, not just one, as that would leave a very awkward gap. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only to the list classification, historically these articles have been classified by the community as lists due to the reasoning you point out; see Category:List-Class Athletics articles for hundreds of other examples. I only chose the first two newspapers.com results but there are many others about the event if you just search the names of the medalists in quotes. These javelin throws only happened once every four years and they were a very important and highly-discussed sports match, second only to the Olympics. --Habst (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion to establish if this should be treated separately from other Games articles
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:NOLYMPIC position quoted above extends to other top-level championships including the Commonwealth Games. It is true that the Games as a whole have an over-arching level of notability as they are a major sporting event, but each individual competition within the Games is also notable in its own right. In practice, as BeanieFan11 rightly pointed out earlier, individual event articles are maintained as valid forks from the Games article for reasons that must include pagelength and readership convenience. Spartathenian (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOLYMPIC suitably makes the case that the Commonwealth Games would be notable, but there are 45 disciplines at the Commonwealth games, of which 26 are core disciplines. The relevant discipline for Men's Javelin is, in fact, Athletics (a core discipline). The Athletics discipline consists of nearly 70 events, of which the Men's javelin throw is just one. A page on the Commonwealth Games in any year it is held is certainly notable. That does not mean that for every Commonwealth Games we should also presume there are many hundreds of pages of notable events for every one of the 45 disciplines. There is clearly no such presumption intended nor implied. The only thing that matters would be secondary sources telling us about the 1998 men's javelin throw, discussing the event, and explaining why the event is enduringly notable. Such coverage would need to be WP:SUSTAINED, and not just primary reports of the results of the competition itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, I understand your frustration but I think part of the reason these guidelines have worked so well is because nobody has been able to find a case disproving the rule yet, at least not for a javelin throw at the Commonwealth Games. In my search earlier I saw newspapers that do exactly what you describe about the 1998 Commonwealth javelin, I can't speak for every event but these ones at least were a big deal. Of course, another explanation is that these articles are classified as lists which can be treated differently w.r.t. notability per WP:NLIST. --Habst (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were the guidelines suggesting that every single event spawns hundreds of pages, then the guidelines would not be working well. But the guidelines don't say that. This page is a spin-off. There is no evidence of independent notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number of pages created (whether hundreds, thousands, or zero) isn't an indication that a guideline is working or not working. The indication would be whether community consensus was achieved, which by and large it is as demonstrated in this AfD for international games coverage. --Habst (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions by Habst. I agree with the user Habst here. It meets significant relevance and notability. WP:N and WP:V HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not about a small sports event respectfully as coverage is there. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Commonwealth Games events are notable. Svartner (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - I have struck my delete, because there is no point arguing the toss on this single event when, as Habst points out above, these pages exist for all events in all games. Deleting this page will make very little impact in that situation, and, in fact, any resolution would require very large amounts of effort. To be clear, no evidence has been given that this event is independently notable. We have no sources at all beyond the results, and nothing to put on this page (and all such pages) other than results tables. There were 283 events at the last Commonwealth Games, and I think that doubles as there are men's and women's events. That is an enormous number of pages sourced only to the primary sourced medals table, and in my review, this is exactly what is found on all of these I looked at. Is Wikipedia here for duplicating the medals tables these pages are sourced from? Is a semiplagiaristic results database what the encyclopaedia is all about? Perhaps not. But there also might be marginal utility for those who cannot otherwise search for the official record. In any case, any attempt to resolve this situation would need to consider all pages at once, and this AfD is not the place to consider that. If the nom. wants to start and RfC on the matter, please ping me in, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by deleting this lone permastub. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important for the record to contest that no evidence has been given that the event is notable; the above linked articles provide prose-based SIGCOV of the event and they're far from the only ones. These prose-based non-database sources were added to the article, so it's not true that there are no sources beyond the results. Also, w.r.t. plagiarism, it's important to note that simple facts like sports results or temperature data or election/polling results are generally not copyrightable and are in the public domain in the U.S. regardless of whether there is a copyright notice on the original source. --Habst (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two short newspaper reports of the event are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sources must be secondary to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak

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

While the outbreak is very notable, this article was initially denied at AfC based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and was later published into the mainspace anyway. The article contains several errors (such as stating the Hackleburg tornado killed 72 people but only listing 70), and the table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates. The top table also does not seem to jive with the list of fatalities below it in regards to the date. The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown. In fact, those people are known, but likely do not have names published online in an easily found place. I believe an alternative to outright deletion could be to condense this into a section at 2011 Super Outbreak or to break the names (provided the information is correct) into separate tables in their respective tornado's section at 2011 Super Outbreak. United States Man (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTMEMORIAL only applies to non-notable casualty lists, which isn’t the case here. Other than that, nothing said warrants deletion. Instead of immediately sending it to AfD, be bold and fix it. E_F⁵ 23:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have a computer, an in-depth reasoning:
1. The Teahouse decline is moot since I published it after another experienced user told me it was fine.
2. NOTMEMORIAL only applies todeceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Note that every person on the list has had some form of coverage, and as such does not fall under NOTMEMORIAL.
3. This is far from a WP:TNT situation needing the deletion of a large list. Slap a {{cleanup|reason=Missing people in the list}} tag instead of immediately taking it to AfD, or you can one-up that and actually fix the issue.
4.The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown andhe table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates aren't policy-based and don't hold weight. — E_F⁵ 12:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty cut and dry case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well as WP:NOTDATABASE (I read the above arguments about this not being a case of NOTMEMORIAL, but I'm unconvinced). I understand that they can all be sourced, but the vast, vast majority of this list is simply a reprint of two news articles listing the names of the deceased. I suppose you could make an argument that these could be broken out into sections on the individual tornado pages. nf utvol (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is not encyclopedic. There are many, many, many catastrophes in the world. And Wikipedia isn't the place to memorialize everyone. Angryapathy (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, while the wording of NOTMEMORIAL might not exactly match this, I think the intent does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is sad, but unfortunately it falls under the NOTMEMORIAL clause of "others who do not meet such [notability] requirements". Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, strong merge per all above. I like the nominator's alternative of having this be a section on 2011 Super Outbreak over straight-up removal from the site. Departure– (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have clear consensus for "this article shouldn't exist". Relisting to check if there is any more support for a merge rather than outright deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge definitely as no one is favoring keeping it, apart from one vote. This article is consisting detailed post-event details, part of a causing event which has it's own independent article. The casualties and the event itself are two different things and enough coverage with passable mentions. I will include some news articles here with casualties and losses mentioned but there are tens of more such independent sources. Some might be on the article or mentioned but these are from a simple google search - [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Combined of them and many more sources with moderate analysis are enough to keep the article but again, just to keep it WP:ATD, merge.HilssaMansen19 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge into 2011 Super Outbreak. Articles that are lists of fatalities of an event are very rare on Wikipedia — the only comparable article I can think of is Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks, but in that instance, which has been discussed before, the list itself is very notable. In this case I'm not seeing that kind of coverage. The fatalities section should be placed into the article as-is. The deaths referenced by individual sources should be put into their respective tornadoes' subsections in the "Confirmed tornadoes" section, and the large AL list can be added as an external link. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per HilssaMansen19 or otherwise weak delete. Though a merge to 2011 Super Outbreak is right. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 Daraa clashes

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

Insignificant clashes article which gives little to no information to the readers. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present). Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since the article's small (the timeline only has 3 small sentences), but idk if it should merged into the Western Syria Clashes article because that's specifically about Latakia/Tartus and western Homs/Hama (though it could just be renamed to something like Assadist insurgency).

I was gonna propose making a Mohsen al-Haymed article, but he's only been reported on in 3 separate months - April 2024, January 2025, and March 2025, which might not be enough coverage for a separate article.

(If this article isn't deleted, it should be renamed to something like 2025 al-Sanamayn Clashes or al-Sanamayn Clashes (2024-2025)) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the info to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) wouldn't make sense, as Daraa is in southern Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low level of Oppostition It should remain in place until the Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present) page issue is resolved Because only the title applies to the Western Syria Farcazo (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The scope of this article fits better within Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), yet obviously these clashes did not take place in western Syria. Building off of this, there's significant discussion on the name of the article, and at the current moment it seems that the general consensus leans towards changing the title to a more inclusive name, but disagreement exists on what to change the name too. It might be a good idea to extend this AFD discussion until ongoing discussion on the other article is resolved. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how about improving it?? JaxsonR (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministerial candidacy of Narendra Modi

Nomination: How a party decided their prime ministerial candidate is not notable and interesting topic at all. India has Parliamentary system in contrast to Presidential system. According to this logic, Prime Minister should be decided only after the election. This article doesn't demand a separate article. This article doesn't seem notable at all and may be formed due to ideological biasness. This article should either be deleted or be merged to Narendra Modi. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the info is simply repeated in Narendra Modi section titled Premiership campaigns. His campaigns on there own were not unique and only hold significance because he is the prime minister of India.

The event doesn't hold noteriaty outside of him so it should be found in Narendra Modi article (which a version already exists).

RCSCott91 (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narendra Modi I support having separate article for political campaigns, especially for someone like Modi. Modi's article already has too much content and part of it should be split off into their own articles. This article would be a great split. It currently has about 20 sources, so there is substantial content here. I am only voting to merge because it needs more work for finish the split, and if the split is not finished, then we should have all the content in one place. I would change to "keep" if editors would check the main Modi article, move content from there to here, briefly summarize the concept, and link the main article to here while avoiding duplicate/WP:FORK content appearing in both places. I want to support keeping this but right now it is a WP:FORK. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Largely duplicative, no need for separate article. Reywas92^Talk 17:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

Events

Proposed deletions