Aja viide. Aja lugu.

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:

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

1976 Olympia bombing

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

Cannot find evidence this has independent notability to pass WP:NEVENT. There were a lot of bombings in the Troubles. Unless further coverage exists that proves notability, should be merged to Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–1979)#1976 PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Ireland. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've just added a bunch more detail, plus contemporary news references. It's also significant in that this incident caused the Provisional IRA to temporarily pause their bombing campaign in Britain due to the fallout - Alison ^talk 04:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alison The contemporary news sources don't really help it pass NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fact that the Provos paused their campaign for some time adds to the uniqueness of this particular bombing - Alison ^talk 04:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's currently uncited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Brownsville crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. The coverage is not WP:INDEPTH enough to write a satisfactory article, and the coverage is not particularly sustained. Nothing between sentencing and incident, or since. On the balance of things this does not pass our guidelines and there is not enough to write a decent article. This wasn't even intentional, they sentenced him over intoxication manslaughter, so I would oppose merging it to any attack list. We could probably merge it for two sentences to Brownsville, Texas#21st century, because it seems locally significant, but there isn't anything to say besides it happened, no background or aftermath, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Texas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surkis ambush

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

Really, of the sources that seem to discuss this battle oe is a Google groups site? Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Surkish Definitely seems like a thing for a history section of Surkish rather than a separate article. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Surkish. Fails WP:GNG minor event with no lasting notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rezalla (1997)

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

Most of the soruces do not seem to be able this battle, so much as one of the participants as such IT is nolt notable. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hajla Pass

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

Another artivle riddles with soruces that only contain trivial metions.

No evidance of notabilty. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Ranji Trophy Group A

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

Strange to have Group B and Group C and Group D redirected, but not Group A. This one should be redirected too for consistency if we aren't going to have separate articles for Group B and Group C and Group D. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. 0–4 Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

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

Routine sports fixture, no evidence of lasting notability. Both teams are having inconsistent seasons, so whilst result might be a surprise, there has been no ongoing coverage about the match. Man City were on a run of 4 consecutive league defeats, and 6 out of 8, so any individual defeat is not particularly notable. Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. It's also too soon to know if there will be sustained lasting coverage of this match which would make it notable. It's not the first time Tottenham have beaten Man City 4–0 either. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, of course it has sources. But so do the other 379 Premier League games that happen every season, and for that matter the other 1,656 fully professional English league games as well. You could probably write a well-sourced article on all 2,000+ of them - every year. However, we have very few articles on individual league games, and most of those are games where some sort of record was set, or they have an unusual and lasting amount of sourcing (i.e. Battle of the Buffet). This one meets none of those criteria. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no indication that this match is any more notable than most others. – Pee Jay 14:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not historical. Matchcruft. Geschichte (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are purely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Wburrow (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill Premier League game with only routine coverage. Frank Anchor 17:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I posted about this on WT:Football and it looks like a snow delete already. Nothing wrong with discussing this on season pages. But we don't need to do individual match articles like this, wikipedia would be overwhelmed if we did. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no more notable than other games. Brief summaries of the article could appear in the respective clubs' season articles. Valenciano (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Seasider53 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qafë Prush

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

THis was a minor skirmsih. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are ALOT of minor skirmish and this is more some sort of Attack on KLA fighters killing one of the notable generals and wounding two others Unknown General17 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the point, there are lots of minor skirmishes, in all wars. We do not generally have articles on them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are alot small ambushes that are kept which didn't do anything in war Unknown General17 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It being a minor skirmish isn't a reason in itself for deletion. A, few, other, examples. What matters is notability. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 12:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not seem to pass wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 sources. 4 of which look to be reprints. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If i add like 1-2 new sources will you remove the thing for deletion? Unknown General17 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would all depends on on the quality of the sources and the coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 new sources, one Albanian and other is from Kosovo site on Serbian language Unknown General17 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources show the battle being a topic that is covered.. it is also notable because it is where KLA fighter Luan Haradinaj was killed. There are many articles about the war in same style that were created which are not maybe major but which are listed as KLA or Albanian victory like Anadrinë offensive, Surkis ambush. Battle of Rezalla (1997), Battle of Jezerc, Battle of Hajla Pass, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.55.28 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failsWP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it fails General notability then alright but I don't think there is reason for deletion Unknown General17 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Scottsdale Airport collision

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

Run-of-the-mill accident and non notable RobertOwens01 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and United States of America. RobertOwens01 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wdym not notable? This is Vincent Neil’s jet. Grffffff (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Vince Neil was not on board the aircraft. This is not a situation like 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash where the only survivors were two people who were already established as notable enough to have biographical articles in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean merge to Vince Neil. Appears to be a routine accident that has received slightly more coverage because a jet was owned by Neil. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A runway excursion by a private plane is a run-of-the-mill accident from an aviation point of view. Accidents are not inherently notable, per WP:EVENTCRIT #4. If Neil had been on board it might have been worth a merge, but as it is I can't see a mention in his article passing the WP:10YEARTEST. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Monteforte Irpino bus crash

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

Wikipedia is not for news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Italy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maltrata bus crash

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

Wikipedia is not for news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Mexico. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M-5 motorway bus-oil tanker collision

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

Wikipedia is not for news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 WAFU Nations Cup

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

According to rsssf.org, there was no tournament in 2015. Mitte27 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Senegal. Mitte27 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
upd: tournament was held in WAFU Zone A among players under 23. That is, it was a different tournament. --Mitte27 (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Sheffield school stabbing

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

Firstly, I'd like to point out that this is my first time nominating an article for deletion, so there might be something I've done wrong. Feel free to point it out if so. With regards to the deletion discussion itself, this article seems like a WP:NOTNEWS violation. While the death of anyone is obviously tragic, stabbings are unfortunately a frequent occurrence in the UK, and the fact that one occurred does not mean it should automatically receive an article - things like these are regularly brought to AfD. I don't think there's anything here that suggests it goes above and beyond the brief regular news cycle. The fact that a vigil march, some standard statements and opinions from politicians, flowers being laid and the school creating a memorial for the student happened, doesn't seem to constitute WP:LASTING coverage. The article is tied together with a couple of contemporary news reports, and the coverage of the incident has already mostly gone away after a week and a half. The policies WP:EVENTCRIT, particularly number 4, and WP:NCRIME are also pertinent here. As we know, Wikipedia is based primarily on consensus, so I've brought the article to AfD to have the community determine if the stabbing is notable or not. Billclinton1996 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Billclinton1996 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP:NOTNEWS. It's a delicate balance, but (in the UK at least), the less information that is easily obtainable before a court conviction the better - juries are supposed to be making judgements based on the prosecution case and not what is written on WP or anywhere else. Unlike news articles which tend to be churned away by the time of a trial, WP pages are fairly easily found. In my view, we would be better waiting until any court case has been completed before writing up an account of these events. JMWt (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least for the moment. Totally tragic though this is, the lasting impact has yet to be seen. We are not a newspaper, we have no hurry. We can have an article when we know that an article is appropriate, and what it should say. It is too early. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON to know if this event will meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Not high profile enough to meet WP:NCRIME. I could see an article made for this event in the future if sustained coverage can be demonstrated, but for now there's no rush to create an article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, unlikely to have sustained coverage jolielover♥talk 04:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS unlikely to have WP:LASTING Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Sri Lanka blackouts

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

Blatant WP:NOTNEWS violation (which is a big bummer, since "that a monkey recently caused a series of Sri Lankan blackouts" would make a killing at DYK!). Also 2020 Sri Lankan blackouts and 2023 Sri Lanka blackouts. Laun chballer 20:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 2024 Cuba blackouts? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All these articles are pretty short and could probably be merged into an article titled Power outages in Sri Lanka, similar to Power outages in Malaysia. ^Falling_Gravity 00:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've created a draft at Draft:Power outages in Sri Lanka using articles listed in Sri Lankan blackouts. Haven't looked through many of the sources yet, but did some light copy-editing since the original articles are kind of wordy. ^Falling_Gravity 03:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per FallingGravity. Individual events may not have a WP:LASTING effect. Chanaka L (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per FallingGravity. Not Wlwtn (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per FallingGravity. I agree with some of the editors viewpoints to merge this to a current disambiguation page Sri Lankan blackouts. I thought this article was noteworthy to have a separate article due to the bizarre circumstances which were unfolded and which pinged my head to write an article for it. Abishe (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ad Dair shooting

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

Non-notable mass murder, WP:NOTNEWS Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searching for sources in any right to left language is really annoying, but there is continuing coverage from years after the fact (2021 2021 2021? year is weird for this source ) from established Saudi sources, including Al Watan (Saudi Arabia), CNN, etc. My issue is that these are mostly about the guy who did it being executed. There is more but searching in Arabic is difficult for me. Still, that's not nothing. Saudi Arabia does not have very many mass shootings so this seems decidedly unusual, especially in how it targeted an educational facility. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a more thorough search later and then decide. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are quite a lot of sources on it in Arabic meeting WP:GNG, the Arabic wiki's page on it is a good place to start. It can definitely be expanded upon. jolielover♥talk 05:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers F.C. 0–1 Queen's Park F.C.

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

Wikipedia is not news website where every match played would have its own article. There is nothing unique in this match to warrant a separate article. Mekomo (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Scotland. Mekomo (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is as notable as Berwick Rangers F.C. 1-0 Rangers F.C. which has its own page. This was the first time in its history that Rangers lost to a lower league club, at home, in the Scottish Cup. The topic generated wide media coverage and discussion and the details around the match deserve to be preserved in an article for those who will be interested in this match in future. Regards 2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:AD:1CE4:4EAF:9A60 (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am the editor who started this article but I’m commenting on a different device and hadn’t logged in. sorry. Regards 2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:AD:1CE4:4EAF:9A60 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First time Rangers have ever lost at home to a lower division club in the Scottish Cup. Does that make it Notable or a cute bit of trivia? Isthisthe sort of thing where we have to wait to see if it has the same sort of cultural reference as the Berwick match? In Vitrio (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regrettably. I think there is a pretty high bar for a separate "upset" article. Remains to be seen if this game has lasting coverage in the way of the Berwick Rangers game. I'm a bit surprised there isn't an article on the "Super Caley" victory against Celtic (2000). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There most definitely should be, it has the lasting coverage. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete second tier team beating Rangers is unusual but unlikely to have lasting coverage, since second tier teams beating first tier teams in cup matches happens often (e.g. Liverpool lost to Plymouth on the same weekend). I would not expect there to be lasting coverage of this, and if in future there is, then and only then should it be re-created. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time will tell whether or not this will get lasting coverage but it's impossible to know right now. Not opposed to draftifying or redirecting but I don't think they are the best solution. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not sure why creator would start it if they don't have time to make it decent? To be honest, not sure it would pass WP:GNG at this time, less than a day later. Matches like Berwick have long-term interest, QP match may well be the same but we cannot assess that after so little time. Crowsus (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per some of the comments above, No need for a match article, should be noted in season articles. Govvy (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Indian Premier League

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

Only the dates have been announced, WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:SIGCOV for now. Tried redirecting, but others disagree. Vestrian24Bio 10:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 10:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose Considering the history from 2007, it is inevitable that the season will happen. It's not 2 years later to be too soon. It is 2026, literally 1 year left. FIFA and world cups also shouldn't have an article from now if going by yours. It's pointless to make it a redirect too. Just let it be in its present stage. The auction is also set to take place this year. 223.185.44.207 (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no useful and significant coverage about the 2026 and 2027 events currently exists. Don't need the 2026 article until late 2025 and the 2027 article a year after that- as that is when significant information like squad retentions are generally announced. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebru Eroğlu

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. She is known for being one of a few people who were expelled from the Turkish army after a recent controversy. Badbluebus (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Events, and Turkey. Badbluebus (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, textbook example of BLP1E, I was planning to add notability tag to the page and then I saw it was nominated for deletion. I don't think it will pass WP:10YEARTEST at all, most likely won't even pass a "one year test".Tehonk (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, this individual appears to be hardly documented other than in the event of her being being expelled from the Turkish army, an event which is not significant in its own right. jolielover♥talk 10:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is true that Ebru Eroğlu was expelled from the military due to a recent controversy. However, the focus is on her because she is the most significant figure among those involved in the action mentioned in the article. This type of incident has occurred for the first time in the history of the Republic of Turkey, impacting both the military and the public. While it has been covered almost daily by the entire Turkish media, it has also gained attention in European and American press. Additionally, she is the first female soldier to graduate as the top student from the Turkish Military Academy. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate for the article to remain. Biologg (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to Turkish Military Academy#2024 Oath controversy, where the incident is covered and she is mentioned by name; it does seem to be her only claim for notability, so BLP1E seems relevant. Changed vote to "Merge", on seeing that the text of the oath isn't yet in the target article. PamD 11:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Block (basketball)

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

No sustained coverage (WP:SUSTAINED) in reliable sources. The single play with a broader game, with a broader finals series is already well discussed at 2016 NBA Finals#Game 7. Note that this proposal follows from the reversal of a December merge (see Talk:2016 NBA Finals#Merger discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Pretty clear evidence of sustained coverage:

Top NBA Finals moments: LeBron James' chasedown block in Game 7 of 2016 NBA Finals

https://www.nba.com/news/history-finals-moments-lebron-chasedown-block-2016

LeBron James Talks Block on Andre Iguodala in NBA Finals: 'I'm Getting This S--t'

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10116277-lebron-james-talks-block-on-andre-iguodala-in-nba-finals-im-getting-this-s--t

Andre Iguodala recalls getting blocked by LeBron in the NBA Finals: "It really sounded like an M80, like fireworks"

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/latest-news/andre-iguodala-recalls-getting-blocked-by-lebron-in-the-nba-finals

When LeBron swooped in and changed the course of Cavs' history

https://www.espn.com.au/nba/playoffs/2016/story/_/id/16544563/nba-finals-2016-oral-history-lebron-chasedown-block

LeBron James had the block — and nearly the dunk — of his life to help win Game 7

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/06/20/lebron-james-had-the-block-and-nearly-the-dunk-of-his-life-to-help-win-game-7/

Andre Iguodala Talks LeBron James' Blocked Shot in Game 7 of 2016 NBA Finals

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2672475-andre-iguodala-talks-lebron-james-blocked-shot-in-game-7-of-2016-nba-finals

Richard Jefferson says LeBron's block in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals is the best defensive play in league history: "A split second later, that's goaltending"

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/latest-news/richard-jefferson-says-lebrons-block-in-game-7-is-the-best-defensive-play-in-history

Reliving LeBron James's Block in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/20/open-floor-podcast-best-games-warriors-cavaliers-lebron-james-block-game-7

I can grab tons more if you'd like but these are articles from 2024 and pretty much every year since 2016. Nkulasingham (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that should be Keep instead of Strong Oppose Nkulasingham (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Qazançı

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NEVENT. Could be summarized and merged to Qazançı, Agdam and sourced there if possible, then redirected. Cremastra (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Azerbaijan. Cremastra (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Massawa (1541)

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

The event is not a battle, but a mutiny that ended in a massacre. None of the sources describe it as a battle, and they only provide minimal details. The article is misleading and likely biased.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Africa, and Portugal. Skynxnex (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original name for this article was Massawa Ambush before someone else changed the article name. You can check this here.[1]
It was still an ambush that destroyed a Portuguese force. You can disagree with the name if you want to. The article is only mentioning the background that led to the events of this engagement. I don't see where the bias is here.
Not enough reason to delete it. I don't see if it fails anything. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and here's what I have to say:
The original title being "Massawa Ambush" does not change the issue that the event does not meet the notability standards for an article. However I do agree that the title change worsened this misrepresentation by making it sound like a major battle.

If the attack was a small skirmish resulting from Portuguese mutineers wandering into enemy territory, then it's not significant enough. And the article exaggerates its importance by presenting it as a major conflict rather than a minor mutiny.

The bias here is how the article presents a small incident into a "battle" to create the impression of a major Adal victory over the Portuguese.
Kolno (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should've added a notability tag to suggest improvement of the article instead of nominating it for deletion first. See Template:Notability.

I don't know how you implied that the article is creating the impression of a major Adal victory. You might argue that the article could be rewritten much better, and that's okay, but I see no reason why it should be deleted; it has reliable secondary sources, provides acceptable coverage, and is independent of the subject.

I have another source that mentions this was more than a mutiny. R.B. Serjeant (1963), The Portuguese Off the South Arabian Coast: Ḥaḍramī Chronicles, with Yemeni and European Accounts of Dutch Pirates Off Mocha in the Seventeenth Century, p. 99 states the following: A contingent about 100 strong landed on the coast by way of assistance for the Hatï King of Abyssinia (al-Habashah), but the Karâd Ahmad al-Mudjâhid dispatched an expedition (tadjrïdah) against them which slew them to the last man. When they got to hear of the death of their comrades they murdered a number of the inhabitants of Musawwa. A quantity of goods was looted there, and their children, male and female (even), were robbed I think this can be added to the article as well.

عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I don't think the article should be deleted as this was heavily reported on. If there are issues with the title of the name of the event, then it can be agreed upon after reaching a consensus and adopting a new name for the article.

However we also have Portuguese sources narrating the event as the following.

Elaine Sanceau discussed this in her book "The Land Of Prester John A Chronicle Of Portuguese Exploration"

Pages 111-112
"In Abyssinia, he informs us, the Patriarch enjoys the same consideration as the Pope in Europe. He was therefore dazzled by his own importance and he wished to dazzle others too. The more the land of his adoption was extolled, the brighter shone his own reflected glory. Thus he talked of Abyssinia constantly and he talked very big. Men listened open-mouthed to his tales of the greatness and riches of that enchanted land and the magnificence of its monarch. Silver and gold were as little to the Negus as they had been to his ancestor Solomon. There was nothing that he would deny to those who fought for him. His empire was the place where every able-bodied man could win a fortune. Abyssinia was the land of all delights."

"The Patriarch applauded the suggestion. It seems that the King had given him authority to raise volunteers for Prester John. Placing a broad interpretation upon this permission, Dom Joao Bermudez encouraged would-be deserters from the fleet. He was lavish with promises on the Emperor's behalf, and made endowments right and left on paper. He looked forward, no doubt, to appearing before Prester John backed by a strong contingent, but he overreached himself at last. His glowing tales made men's mouths water and they could not wait One by one they slipped ashore and disappeared. Vainly Manuel da Gama proclaimed that under pain of death no volunteers might go inland except when Dom Joao Bermudez went, and subject to the Governor's leave. Evasions still continued. The Patriarch's propaganda brought about yet more serious results. Some eighty or a hundred men made up their minds to escape all together. They collected their muskets and their swords. They chose a captain Antonio Correa and a guide was engaged ashore to lead them to the Emperor's camp. They stole a boat one night and rowed away, quite determined that nothing would turn them back."

As you can see in the source, João Bermudez, the self-acclaimed Patriarch of Ethiopia, enticed the soldiers led by Antonio Correa with his propaganda of riches and greatness which he did to raise an army to aid "Prester John" in their fight to liberate Abyssinia from Muslim rule. These soldiers found a Muslim guide ashore to help take them through the interior. Replayerr (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later in pages 113-114,

"The guide "showed great good will and led them into some valleys between mountains, saying that there was water farther down." Gasping, but happily expectant, the adventurers plodded on. Under the paling stare of dawn they plunged into the narrow gorge and straight into an ambush.

Then *our men understood that the guide had deceived them that they might all be slain, and so they killed him and began to fight the Moors with their guns, and the Moors with arrows and slings which showered so many stones upon them that they did not know what to do; none the less, the guns did much harm to the Moors and kept them at a distance.

These Moors were men of the King of Zeila and the King of Massawa . . . with them were Turkish musketeers; but the worst evil [for the Portuguese] was the great thirst from which they suffered*"

Antonio Correa was the first man to be killed, but another captain was appointed hastily, and the battle continued. The fugitives fought desperately, and the struggle might have been prolonged if the Moslems had not devised a stratagem.

They suddenly cried out that the fighting should cease. It had started only by mistake. They really were all Christians and loyal vassals of Prester John! They had supposed the Portuguese were robbers at first sight hence the attack. Now that daylight had revealed their true identity, why not make peace?

Hostilities were suspended at once, but some of the Portuguese remained suspicious. It would be more prudent, they said, to go on fighting. But the majority were frantic with thirst and could not think of anything but their longing for water. The risen sun shone on an arid waste; they had no guide, and if they killed these men, who could lead them to where there was something to drink? The improvised captain especially felt that he could endure the agony no longer. "He was feeble," comments Caspar Correa, who was used to commanders made of sterner stuff. This man prevailed upon his comrades to make peace, at which the Moslems all embraced the Portuguese like long-lost brothers. Did they want water? asked the kindly souls; they should have some at once. So they were led, all unsuspecting, to the King of Zeila's tent.

The terrible Granyé was sitting with his hands devoutly clasped about a string of beads to which was hung a little wooden cross. Reverently he handed this chaplet to the Portuguese captain. "I say my prayers with these" Granyé explained.

The fugitives were in no mood to query the sincerity of his devotions. Could they have water? they implored their pious host, who brought gourds full of water then and there. The sight was too much for parched and weary men. Oblivious of all else, they cast their weapons to the ground and drank They drank and drank and drank, and then loosened their belts to drink still more.

The Moors, meanwhile, laughing and chatting pleasantly, picked up the muskets, swords, and lances and examined them- It was done in such an innocent and casual manner"

"That the Portuguese paid no attention. They were only roused from their orgy of water-drinking when "the Moors, having taken possession of most of the weapons, attacked the Portuguese with them, killing and wounding as many as they could."

"Surrender!" cried the King, "and your lives will be spared.** As nearly all of them were disarmed and defenceless, this appeared the only thing to do, but fourteen valiant souls refused. "Unfortunate men!" they shouted to their comrades. "Why surrender to traitors? Die like men, for they will loll you cruelly!" So saying, they grasped what weapons they had left, and stood tiieir ground and died. In a few minutes all was over. But one man out of the fourteen had the presence of mind, as he fell wounded to the ground, to roll over and lie still as if dead, face downward in his blood. With rigid selfcontrol he played the corpse all day, and so he witnessed his companions* fate.

"Those that had surrendered, the Moors bound hand and foot; they stripped them naked, and shut them in a cattlepen.** Towards evening the Moors lined up outside on horseback, with all their lances bristling in the fading light. "They ordered the pen to be opened, loosed one of the captives, anct bade him come out to where the King and his captains sat on their horses by the door. As the wretched prisoner emerged, thus naked, the King thrust at him with his spear and gave him the first wound, and then the others did the same, and all tormented him.** As soon as the victim fell dead, a second was called out, and so the ghastly game continued until no one was left. "And when the sun had cooled, the Moors loaded their packs and removed to another place, because of all the dead men that lay there.**"[2]

____________________________________________________________

As you can see this group of Portuguese adventurers, suffering from thirst, were led by a guide who promised water but instead led them into a conflict by Moorish forces allied with the Kings of Zeila and Massawa, including Turkish musketeers. A fierce battle ensued, with the Portuguese using their guns effectively but struggling due to dehydration. Their leader was killed, and a new captain was appointed. The Moors then used deception, claiming the attack was a mistake and that they were actually Christians, loyal to Prester John. Desperate for water, the Portuguese accepted peace and were led to the tent of the King of Zeila, Ahmed Granye. He feigned friendship, gave them water, and while they drank in relief, his men casually gathered their weapons. Once disarmed, the Moors attacked and overpowered them.

Most of the Portuguese surrendered, but fourteen refused, choosing to fight and die. One man feigned death and survived to witness the horrific fate of his comrades. The captured men were stripped, bound, and locked in a cattle pen. Later, the Moors, led by their king, executed them one by one in a cruel spectacle. Once the massacre was complete, the victors moved on, leaving the battlefield strewn with corpses. Replayerr (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolno Instead I think the article should have a notability tag and ask for more sources instead of it being deleted as there is enough coverage from secondary sources discussing the event. Please refer to Template:Notability. However I do think this was a significant event as it was one of the things that compelled the Portuguese into a direct intervention in Abyssinia's conflict with Adal. This was the first conflict between Adal and Portugal. Replayerr (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@عبدالرحمن4132 What do you think of this? Replayerr (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I never knew this account existed; big thanks for sharing it. I think this could be added to the article. You're free to expand the article if you wish. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Lukian Prijac's book "Foreign relations with Ethiopia: Human and Diplomatic history (from its origins to present)"

Pages 126-128:

"The ambitious Tegrayan lord, who decades later became a major challenger himself to the Ethiopian Solomonid throne, must have seen the Portuguese in India as powerful associates for his own local political agenda. Similarly, João Bermudez, the physician of Rodrigo da Lima’s embassy, appears as having had an equally important role as mediator between the Ethiopians and the Portuguese and perhaps also as one of the main advocates of the military campaign. But beyond the schemes of individual figures, Christovão’s expedition nourished from the will of ambitious mercenaries, adventure seekers, and deprived soldiers who saw it as an opportunity to improve their condition and obtain potential bounty. An episode occurred at the inception of the expedition and reported in a contemporary anonymous text supports this point. The document informs that when the bulk of the Portuguese armada was fighting at Suez, towards March or April 1541, a group from among the troops who had been left back at the Bay of Arquico set off for the Ethiopian highlands without the knowledge of their military leaders; it was guided by the fidalgo António Correa and comprised about a hundred men. Unfortunately, the improvised military company got quickly lost and ended up being massacred by locals somewhere near the coast. It is thus possible to assume that this early failed expedition was driven by a spontaneous will to combat the mouros, as the Portuguese called the troops of Ahmad b. Ibrahim, and that it was following their example that Estevao came to the decision to send troops to the Ethiopian highlands."[3]

According to this secondary source, it was a deemed a 'failed expedition' driven by spontaneous will to confront the 'mouros'. Agreeing with my previous statements in this discussion. Replayerr (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the additional sources you've provided, I can see that this event has more historical context than I initially thought. My initial concerns were based on the sources cited in the article.

That said, the article in its current state is still very underdeveloped. I recommend you expanding and improving it to ensure it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Additionally, the title remains misleading, so I suggest the old title be brought back. Thank you! Kolno (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will include the content first and rewrite the article and later we can discuss on the talk page of what name should be used Replayerr (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This is a significant event because its the first encounter between Adal and Portugal. Also why would there be a need for bias in favor of Adal? Its not like the humiliating Battle of Wofla doesnt exist. Magherbin (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-edit article. Article is notable. Naming issues can be discussed on the article's talk page to reach a consensus.Tamsier (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mihir Ahammed

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. While this recent incident has received local media attention, the subject doesn't meet any criteria of WP:EVENT. It's a tragedy, but unfortunately a common occurrence. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Schools, and Kerala. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd be inclined to lean delete, however the widespread coverage of the event and the statement from the Indian Congress means this could be notable soon. I think this would fail WP:EVENTCRIT at this time, but if there were changes in legislation or other changes made to Indian schools in the coming weeks, this would thus become notable under the same criteria. For example, the Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons is a similarly tragic event which became notable because of the ensuing inquiry and creation of new cyber bullying legislation. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This wouldn't pass the 10YR test, this is a rather simple death of a non-notable individual. I can't see this as being more than a shocking news story that no one will remember is 6mths. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This recent incident has received national media attention [4][5][6],[7] and the police have confirmed that it was a Suicide

death due to Ragging, and there is a reference to the evidence, and the topic meets the criteria for WP:EVENT. This is not a common occurrence. An incident that is likely to be a model or catalyst for something else of lasting importance is likely to be noteworthy WP:LASTING. School ragging laws are likely to change because of this, as the police have taken up the case and the case is being heard in court[8]. Spworld2 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely TOOSOON then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To be honest, this strikes me as no different than the dozens of North American articles that we have about high-profile youth suicides/deaths that come after intense bullying. See e.g. Suicide of Rodney Hulin, Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, Suicide of Amanda Todd, Death of Conrad Roy, Death of Nex Benedict. Each of those articles have enduring notability because of (a) the socially shocking or surprising type of bullying that preceded the death [sexual violence in juvenile detention, anti-goth bullying, anti-gay bullying, grooming & cyberbullying, female to male domestic partner abuse, and transphobic bullying respectively], and (b) widespread social and political response as a result. The backlash and social pressure campaign around "ragging" is generating an equal, if not more notable, social response than any of the above-mentioned suicides. If we selectively delete this article, we'd be maintaining a dramatically higher threshold of notability for South Asian youth suicides than for North America. Flip^andFlopped ツ 16:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Please provide a valid reason this should be kept. BusterD (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the user has provided the reason. There was also this essay I don't remember name of, which tells not to cite all policies and guidelines here and and there. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 07:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user has made a speech giving their opinion about what we should do in this general circumstance. They haven't presented one refutation of how this page fails NEVENT. BusterD (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merely listing policies and guidelines is discouraged on XfDs, I'll agree. Quoting and applying relevant guidelines and policies (as I have done) is expected. The Hindu reports over 10,000 suicides in Kerala in each of the last three years. Roughly 27 every day. More than one every hour. Unfortunately, suicide is a common occurrence in Kerala (and worldwide), and suicide after bullying is one of the major categories. I assert there's no sources presented or applied which make this case more than just a run of the mill tragedy. Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. We have no evidence presented this case will lead to any broader change in local attitudes or laws. The burden of proof (on notability and verifiability) is on the contributors who wish to keep this article. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see contributors here have recently merged a summary of this event over to the list of Indian incidents at Ragging, so this unfortunate loss may yet help provide a case for others. I will watch that page and help defend the insertion, if possible. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge more into ragging, then redirect. That's an appropriate context. This incident is all too common, akin to school shootings in the United States. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As nominator, I'm never adverse to alternatives to deletion. I see another sub-section Ragging#Major_incidents about Sri Lanka which lists incidents with inline citation. Perhaps merging this material the parallel subsection may be a way to utilize (and better organize) coverage to improve the Ragging page. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Suicide is common in the world, and in India too, But this Suicide was preceded by a socially shocking or surprising type of brutal Hazing and ragging, Racism, resulting in a widespread social and political response. (Important political response: Leaders of the Opposition(India), Leader of the in Lok Sabha and Indian National Congress) The backlash and social pressure campaign surrounding "ragging" creates a social response that is equal to, and more significant than, any other social response. Even before this, the interactions caused by Hazing and ragging have been maintained, for example : Rohith Vemula, Suicide of Fathima Latheefand Suicide of Payal Tadvi etc..~~ Spworld2 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the page creator, you are certainly welcome to all your opinions. Do you have anything to add to this discussion which is based in policy or sources? BusterD (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENT To pass There are significant and reliable sources (References),

sources:- TOI-Ref [9][10][11][12]

Deccan Herald-Ref:-[13] [14]

NDTV--Ref:-[15][16][17]

India Today--Ref:- [18]

The Economic Times--Ref:- [19]

The New Indian Express--Ref:- [20][21][22]

Mathrubhumi:-[23][24][25][26][27]

Republic TV :- [28]

Other:-[29][30][31][32]

Sorry for re-reading any references Spworld2 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of sources is not an argument. BusterD (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amioun

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

Interesting one. I am removing a CSD tag that states, in essence, that the article is a hoax. The problem is that there are sources, albeit weak ones that appear to be motivated by a particular interpretation of history because it supports their religious beliefs. If we decide to keep an article on this topic we would want coverage of the possibility that the subject battle never took place. I do believe that deletion is likely the better outcome which is why I am listing it here. Uninvited Company 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Uninvited Company 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lebanon, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weakness is definitely a consideration. The first source is the defunct WWW site of a catholic church in Pennsylvania. However, there's an 1899 source by François Nau (Opuscules maronites) that talks about "combat près d'Amioun" and in its turn sources the claim to the writings of Étienne Douaïhi d'Ehden, so this might need more scrutiny than just outright dismissal for being mostly sourced to a dead anonymously-written inexpert early 2000s WWW site, although there's still the possibility that al-Duwayhi invented this and Nau offers scant independent corroboration. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added additional sources backing the documentation of the battle. The claim that the subject only exists because of certain authors backgrounds is problematic in it of itself but has little strength unless one were to argue that Gibbons, Hitti, Sandrussi, Selim and Encyclopedia Britannica were all Maronite apologists. The prerequisite of the battle not happening or else it will be deleted does not have any justification and seems to just be an excuse to delete the page. Red Phoenician (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident

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

A WP:NEWS event already covered at Antisemitism in Australia#The aftermath of the 7 October attacks and WP:FORKED out of there for no good reason. Clashes between anti and pro-Israel activists, especially a few months after October 7, are routine/WP:ROTM and better covered on broader articles instead of forks. This fork is also giving this event undue weight.

Besides, just passing WP:GNG is not enough for articles about events to be notable, WP:NEVENTS applies here. An online privacy law was indeed passed in December 2024, but that law was already on the work way before this event prompted some pro-Israel activists to pressure the government (to be precise, it was a major 2023 report by the Australian Attorney General, which regarded online data breaches, that urged the Parliament to enact this new online privacy law [33]). Badbluebus (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Events, Politics, Internet, and Australia. Badbluebus (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree that this incident is better covered in Antisemitism in Australia rather than as a standalone article, which places it into a broader context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article currently has 45 references, and even if some of them are weak, the others are far more than required to establish notability. The incident had ongoing impact because it influenced Australian legislation that passed and became law. The fact that the legislation was already under consideration is not relevant as at least five reliable sources report that the doxxing incident helped the legislation go through. Also, at least one person was arrested in the aftermath of this doxxing. The Guardian in the UK reported that the New York Times in the US said It has been brought to our attention that a New York Times reporter inappropriately shared information with the subject of a story to assist the individual in a private matter, a clear violation of our ethics. This was done without the knowledge or approval of the Times. We have reviewed the matter and taken appropriate action. In other words, this led to a worldwide journalistic controversy. The topic is clearly notable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. I think the significance of this event goes well beyond the other incidents covered in Antisemitism in Australia#The aftermath of the 7 October attacks. While the possibility of the new legislation had been raised, there are many, many sources that tie its passing directly to this doxxing incident (e.g. [34] [35] [36]). There's also been plenty of continuing coverage beyond the immediate news cycle, such as this article in Haaretz from about a month ago. And unlike the many WP:ROTM incidents of things like petty vandalism after October 7, this involved relatively prominent individuals on both sides and sparked real debate about whether the leak was justified (e.g. [37] [38]). While it's only been a year, I think that it's likely to continue to attract ongoing scholarly attention in the context of debates about journalistic ethics and laws around whistleblowing and doxxing. MCE89 (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep probably about 1/4 of the sources are unreliable (such as Newsweek) but overall it looks like it passes based on significant coverage. If kept, which I'm leaning towards, it needs some editing down. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article relies heavily on sources that are unlikely to cover the issue in an unbiased manner. I removed a particularly controversial one yesterday [39]. If kept, as per Bearian, many do indeed need to be trimmed, and it would need some rewrites for neutrality, beginning with the opening line. @Cullen328:@MCE89: If you're voting to keep, I encourage you to add this article to your watchlist and either help improve it once this nomination closes, or at least monitor for biased edits. There is currently an active discussion at the NPOV noticeboard regarding one person's controversial edits to this article and others. That editor isn't alone. Here's a different editor modifying this article, attributing something to a source when the source explicitly says the exact opposite of this text added [40]. My point is the article needs as much neutral oversight as it can get. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Damien Linnane, you have been editing Wikipedia for roughly 17 years and have over 66,000 edits. You surely ought to have learned by now that there is no requirement that reliable sources be unbiased. What is required is that sources be reliable and that the selection of sources represents the full range of reliable sources discussing the topic, and that the content accurately summarizes the sources and is written from the neutral point of view. We simply do not delete articles about notable topics because some editors conclude on their own that some of the sources are biased. Instead, we remove unreliable sources and the content cited only to such bad sources, and keep the article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Bearian (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: At no point have I suggested we simply delete the article because I have an issue with sources; implying I would want that appears to be a bit dramatic. As per my comment I am encouraging people to become involved in editing to help improve the article, rather than just voting to keep it and moving on while issues remain. I gave an example of what I think could be improved. The issue is not that the article relies heavily on conservative sources, but that it does so when it doesn't have to; other sources exist but are not used. See my post at the NPOV noticeboard for examples of POV issues and how some sources were not accurately summarised. And while I have fixed many of those issues, additional things could be improved. I'm un-watching this nomination page; It's clear the article will be kept. I again encourage you and others to now watch and/or edit the article in question to help improve it. Damien Linnane (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Badbluebus

I don't these are strong reasons for exclusion of the article based on the WP policies you've cited. Furthermore, I think the wording of the policies you've referred to indicates the opposite - that this article meets all the criteria for inclusion. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).

See diversity of coverage policy per WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE covered by every Australian newspaper, the WSJ, NYT, Newsweek, Haaretz, Jewish media worldwide.Given that you link the changes in privacy law to the notability of this article, there are many sources linking the February 2024 doxxing to the subsequent changes in Aus privacy law, e.g. [41][42] [43] [44]

Regarding WP:ROTM, many sources attest to this leak being of serious gravity. I think it's a bit unfair to say the article was created "for no good reason". On the gravity of the leak and how it clearly meets WP:GNG and is anything but WP:ROTM:

Jewish Australian MP Josh Burns described the doxxing as "one of the most frightening and unprecedented experiences of Jewish people in Australia and it shakes them to the core". [45].
Longer from Burns: “If you ask any member of the Jewish community about this doxxing issue, every single member of the Jewish community would respond with how frightening this is, that they have never experienced anything like this"[46]
Since Oct. 7, however, Aussie Jews have been shocked by an explosion of antisemitism, including doxing, boycotts of Jewish businesses, and violent attacks. One of the most troubling incidents occurred when a WhatsApp group dedicated to combating antisemitism in the arts had its information leaked and compiled into a “Jew List.”[47]
"I have never seen our community so fearfuland so shaken. Every conversation I have,including with Holocaust historians andsurvivors, is punctuated by utter disbelief,”said ECAJ co-chair Alex Ryvchin. “Perhapsone of the most notorious incidents has been the publication of a ‘Jew list’ containing personal information of hundreds of Jewish artists and academics"[48]

Regarding WP:NEVENTS:

media coverage of the leak has continued for a substantial duration of time: from the revelation of the leak in February 2024 to early 2025. There was extensive coverage around the time of the leak in February-March 2024, more coverage in August 2024 when the source of the leak was revealed[49] and there has been coverage in 2025[50]

I.e., there is a year of continuous coverage reflecting developments regarding the leak Wrt WP:INDEPTH, WP:DEPTH: media coverage has included extensive commentary on the ethical questions raised by the leak, reflections on the impact of the leak on the groups members, and its impact on the Jewish community in Aus more generally.

The article has been worked out in detail with several editors reconciling their different points of view, and it should be retained. Noteduck (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: We very recently had an ArbCom case which had as a finding of fact that POV forks are very common in this topic area. As such, I'm very skeptical of splits in this topic area specifically and would prefer expanding the material over at Antisemitism in Australia. Loki (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the material on the doxxing incident on the existing Antisemitism in Australia page is far too long and wordy, and should be shortened. However, please see my longer comment and those of Cullen328 and MCE89 - this specific incident is quite unique in the scale of coverage and debate it's generated, and it's clearly notable according to the criteria of multiple WP policies, as I addressed in my previous comment Noteduck (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here and add in Wikinews (the most appropriate place). JacktheBrown (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Antisemitism in Australia: The antisemtism in Australia article is currently 35,549 characters, or 5363 words, in size and can confortably handle the content without any weighting issues. We don't need more WP:POVFORKS giving WP:UNDUE attention to these sorts issues in this topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 04:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given how notable this was, very much deserves its own article. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS and is detailed enough to warrant having its own article. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork for a non-event. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eason Chan's FEAR and DREAMS World Tour

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

Article about a concert tour, not properly referenced as passing WP:NTOUR. As always, concert tours are not automatically entitled to their own Wikipedia articles just because they happened -- in the exact words of NTOUR, what is required is that the sources "show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms", while "sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability."
But as usual for bad articles about concert tours, this is just "tour happened, so here are the set list and the venues, the end", with absolutely none of the content about any noteworthy cultural, creative or social context that NTOUR requires, and it's "referenced" entirely to a single Instagram post rather than any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Hong Kong. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I doubt whether a BEFORE was actually conducted prior to this nomination, as the corresponding article on zhwiki [zh] already has 19 sources, all except the first and last of which are news articles from reputable media like Ming Pao[51], Hong Kong Economic Times[52], HK01[53], Oriental Daily News[54], Sing Tao Daily[55], and Ta Kung Pao[56], indicating that there are plenty of accessible sources available. From a quick Google search, I found many sources not only from Hong Kong, but also from Taiwan[57][58][59], China[60][61][62] Singapore[63][64][65], Malaysia[66][67][68], and Thailand[69]. There are also concert reviews, such as from The Straits Times[70] and HK01[71]. I agree with the nom that the current article is in poor shape, containing no sources aside from an Instagram post and consisting solely of a rundown and tour dates. However, AFD is not cleanup. The nom's concerns should be addressed by adding a {{more citations needed}} template instead of directly sending it to AFD. (especially considering that the article was created yesterday by a relatively new editor, there is a greater chance that the page creator is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's citation policies rather than the subject being non-notable.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not appreciating the attack here against Bearcat (who is one of our most prolific AfD nominators and can do BEFORE in their sleep, literally), and there's just one source in this article, followed by a no context list of venues and an untranslated track list. This is a very, very poor article titled completely wrong and promotional, and Eason Chan#Tours is also very poorly written. At the very minimum we need a proper translation of the song list and many more sources. I also don't think this is the article creator's first rodeo as they know at the very least how to create bulleted lists and grids, so the 'first article give them a chance' argument doesn't hold water for me. Nate • (chatter) 18:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I appreciate Bearcat's hard work at AFD as well, and I certainly did not intend to attack him. However, I think it is quite obvious that a BEFORE is indeed missing prior to this discussion, especially considering there are literally 17 sources sitting in the Chinese version of the article. A quick search I did also revealed numerous sources in both Chinese and English, and I have only listed a couple of the strongest ones (like concert reviews and foreign media coverage) above, which is already more than enough for a GNG pass. Nate, deletion is not cleanup, and AFD has nothing to do with incorrect title format and poor article quality. We are discussing notability here, and sources not yet included in an article should also be considered. Please review the sources I provided here or on zhwiki before you !vote delete, and it would be even better if you could also do a cursory search, given the absence of a BEFORE in this discussion (especially since I literally found several dozen of them during my search). —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is my fault that the initial article was not well presented. I've been enhancing the article's quality and adding more sources and citations to demonstrate that the FEAR and DREAMS World Tour deserves its own article. Woodikiw (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I reverted the move that was done during this AfD. Please do not move the page while the AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in Wyoming

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

May not be notable, only cited in a few local news articles over a few days in 2020, no coverage since. Maybe a merge to "List of George Floyd protests in the United States" would be a better home for this content. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Wyoming. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be a list of George Floyd protests for every state in the USA: Category:George Floyd protests in the United States by state or territory. I agree a lot of these protests aren't notable enough for mention (WP:NOTNEWS), but the most notable ones from all states could be bundled into one, as per the nominator? Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per GNG. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Another Believer. All fifty states' George Floyd protests articles are worthy of expansion; if you don't agree, just look at this map. Songwaters (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Well cited, and could easily be expanded based on the abundant published, secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of published material available to expand this article. I just quickly added more about the Laramie protests which continued nightly for three weeks straight. Yuchitown (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - all "...in state" articles, into the List of George Floyd protests in the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. That would make the article WAY too long. Songwaters (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator - maybe this and the handful of other place-specific articles that are essentially a list of "X people marched in Y city on June Z" could be merged into the "...in the United States" article (like Vermont, Maine, North Dakota, etc.), but not ones with more substantive and unique content (like for Chicago). I just think that we don't need multiple articles that are list of local news events that have no hope of growing into anything in the future, when they could easily be summarized into a main article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Also outside the scope of this discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States Changing myself to Merge above. Good article, but there are too many of these protests around the world to give them all a stand-alone article. — Maile (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up to "about 500 people" were in the most popular protest. Hundreds of people walking down a street with nothing else happening isn't enough for its own article. Anything notable should be listed in George Floyd protests. Dream Focus 06:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If numbers were the only metric of notability, there would be almost no Wyoming-related articles. Yuchitown (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Yuchitown. Eelipe (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States. No secondary sources cover the impact of these specific protests as opposed to others, and this is not independently notable from the broader George Floyd protests. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added sources explaining how the Laramie protests took on local issues and maintained nightly protests for the three weeks straight. The sources are readily available. Yuchitown (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States – Per Thebiguglyalien. Votes for strong keep do not bring arguments with policy. Svartner (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States AgusTates (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Sockstrike[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Not sure if the vote should be struck out or not but one editor preferring to merge was blocked for sockpuppetry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, User:AgusTates has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Alon9393. Yuchitown (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States. No sustained coverage of these protests by themselves. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wealth of coverage of these protests. I just added some today, but there's plenty more to draw from. The three-week-long protests in Laramie might be the longest public protests in Wyoming's history. The protests in Wyoming differ from protests elsewhere in that Wyoming is the least populated state in the country with one of the highest-percentage White populations. Yuchitown (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also interested in expanding this article, though probably not in the next few days. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the list of protests in the United States. Each and every protest isn't notable, this far removed from the event. This is like 9/11 articles, we don't need details on every little thing that happened surrounding the event, most aren't more notable than the rest, so can be listed together. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. The argument that it should be merged because there were a lot of protests is not a valid reason. Nor is the argument that not very many people attended. What matters is if GNG is met by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Note to closing admin: the sockpuppet iVote should be discarded or struck out. Netherzone (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable with ample sourcing. Oppose merge, there's too much content for a merge. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Response

AfDs for this article:

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

I meant to PROD it, but apparently it was nominated for deletion in 2005. Regardless, the only source that confirms this event existed at all was made by a partner organization. I couldn't find any other sources, not even a PR release, documenting it, so it should be deleted for not following the notability guidelines. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than some stuff from Getty Images that show this wasn't a hoax, I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:NORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Has already been brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Hall of Fame (2025)

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

WP:TOOSOON, Although, it is announced that Paul "Triple H" Levesque that will inducted on Hall of Fame, it is premature to create this solely article. However, there is a section on WWE Hall of Fame#2025. Much likely supporting to Redirect for a while, then if it's announced completely who's in the hall of fame, it can be created solely. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now, until/unless we get more to work with. It's WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 as per LM2000, the topic simply does not have enough information at this time to warrant a standalone article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a ridiculous nomination. Clear secondary sources exist such as [72] and the event is two months away. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously WP:TOOSOON like you said, it's two months away. According to WP:TOOSOON:Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article. It's Triple H that only have an announcement that inducted on Hall of Fame and if there is will be on hall of fame without a reliable sources might be WP:CRYSTALBALL. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now. Per WP:TOOSOON. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 14:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:PWEVENT once the date and location has been announced for these events its deemed to have met the notability criteria. Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date and location for this event have already been announced according to the article. The date is April 18, 2025, and the location is T-Mobile Arena in Paradise, Nevada. So, it is keep. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be real the date and place have not been confirmed yet- it is a bullshit 2A13:9900:F000:0:1F0:6059:E8EA:D3F6 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2A13:9900:F000:0:1F0:6059:E8EA:D3F6:Please be Civil to your vote. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary sources are present, and this is obviously something that will be updated over the coming weeks, so deleting it now only to have it re-created next month seems odd. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Poosam Kavady festival in South Africa

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

This stub does not warrant a separate article. For a long time, the page was not about anything specific to South Africa [73] and only about Thaipusam itself.

Redirect to Thaipusam#Outside India. There is also another page titled Kavadi Aattam, which is about the same festival. This article is essentially a one liner The festival was first introduced to South Africa in the 1860s by indentured Indian laborers who worked on sugarcane plantations.

In a WP:BEFORE, the sources from The Citizen bring no additional information and have several local information but Wikipedia is not a tour guide [74]: For further information, contact _____ on XXX XXXXXXX. (mentions 5 such phone numbers)

The book sources do not have much [75].

When the festival is so much bigger in other countries that do not warrant articles such as Malaysia, it makes no sense for this article to exist [76]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is the kind of obvious thing you just do yourself without involving others. "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." WP:MERGEPROP. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Reywas92 what target article are you suggesting? The nominator mentioned two different articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care both are fine, I said this so obviously doesn't need a standalone page the nominator can do as they like without involving others. Reywas92^Talk 22:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into both suggested articles. This should not be a deletion discussion, but uncontroversial merge in my opinion. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Ultramarathon Cup

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

Doesn't seem like a very notable event especially since it hasn't been held since 2019. Poorly sourced. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think that the fact that a competition hasn't been held recently isn't evidence for or against notability, we need to look at the sourcing available. Looking up the German name "Europacup der Ultramarathons" I found these from the Schwäbische Post : [77] [78] [79] This is also a good recap from Aachener Zeitung : [80] Given that the series started in 1992 before the digital era, I think there are more newspaper sources to be found here. --Habst (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no discussion after previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's World Chess Championship 1934 (non-FIDE)

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

This was not a world championship match. It was an informal casual match played in Amsterdam (rather than Rotterdam as suggested in the article). I've taken a look at some news sources from the time, and nothing suggests that the world title was at stake (plus, a title match of just four games is absolutely unheard of). I can't find any evidence that suggests that this was actually a match for the world championship, or one of any significance for that matter. [81] 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Dutch newspapers of the time can be checked online for free. They covered the match quite extensively. I introduced a citation in the article, for ease of reference. The 1934 Menchik-Graf match was indeed an informal match over four games, played at Max Euwe´s home in Amsterdam. The title of World Champion was not on the line. The match is adequately mentioned in the articles about Vera Menchik and Sonja Graf, see here and here and there is no reason to have a standalone article on the match. An alternative to deletion might be to rename this article 1934 Menchik-Graf match only to blank-and-redirect it to the relevant section in the Vera Menchik article. I don´t really see the point and consider deletion the best option. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion contested on talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible rename. The second source in the article, which is essentially clippings from 'International Championship Chess: A complete record of FIDE events' by B.M. Kazic (Batsford, 1974), Chapter 10, titled 'Women World Chess Champions; From Vera Menchik to Nona Gaprindashvili' (p.259-267) notes that this was a privately organized challenge match for the title in which Menchik retained her title. This biography of Menchik says the multiple other sources saying that are wrong: [82] (pg. 128), so there seems to be some sort of historiographical dispute (which maybe should be mentioned) Yes, it wasn't sanctioned by FIDE, but private challenges was the norm for the open title between the two best women players, so being "unofficial" doesn't mean the chess world wouldn't have recognized it (indeed, the next challenge match between the same two in 1937 was officially sanctioned). If Dutch newspapers covered it quite extensively, then it WP:GNG is met and the real issue is what the title should be. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that it was an unrecognized match for the title (like Fischer–Spassky (1992 match)), it's that it wasn't even intended to be a title match. The source which claims this was a privately organized match for the title also claims that it was played in Rotterdam, which is verifiably incorrect (all newspapers from the time state that it was in Amsterdam). None of the newspapers make any mention of a world title match either. While private challenges was indeed the norm for the open title, the women's title was controlled by FIDE from the start. Being covered in newspapers of the time isn't enough for a rather insignificant casual chess match to warrant an article. 9ninety (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute over if it was was significant enough to be noted in the Tanner source from 2016. My mention of the Dutch articles at the time was to show that it isn't just recent interest, but something that was covered then and today, including being listed alongside world championships as Kazic does (regardless of if it was a challenge match or not would seem to meet WP:GNG. We should probably rename it, but it's preferable to have a short article here which can be summarized in the Menchik and Graf articles instead of trying to fit it into both per WP:NOPAGE in terms of organization/duplication.

Do the newspapers actually report it as being in Amsterdam? I don't read Dutch, but the newspaper linked in the nomination statement only has Amsterdam in the dateline, which only means that it was filed from there which isn't impossible given the distance and communications technology. Our article on Euwe does say that he spent a stint in Rotterdam between 1926 and WWII without further details, and he wrote the foreword to Kazic's book where the match is mentioned, so you would think it would've been brought up. Tanner and this biography of Euwe, which also very briefly mentions the match, notes that it was in Rotterdam a few pages into Chapter 2. [83] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Tanner also notes that the match was the subject of discussion by an Eales source as to whether FIDE truly controlled the title (though incorrectly as Tanner asserts), but I cannot access it. So that's at least three sources that discuss the championship title question/historiography of the event. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this match any more notable than Lasker–Janowski 1909? That was also a relatively high-profile casual match with multiple sources claiming or discussing its status as a championship match. However, since it was proven to not be a championship match, it receives no more than a passing mention in List of World Chess Championships, not an entire dedicated article. The match in question here was clearly not a championship match. 9ninety (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. If there's a similar or greater amount of coverage of that match than WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT would be met and I would encourage you to to create the article. Regardless, if we were to follow that example, we would be merging this content to the women's equivalent of List of World Chess Championships (i.e. Women's World Chess Championship or Development of the Women's World Chess Championship), not deleting. Though if the 1909 match was not a title match, maybeit shouldn't be there and should only be covered in the background section of World Chess Championship 1910 (Lasker–Janowski), for which the analogue here would be (Women's World Chess Championship 1937 match).

Tanner doesn't explain why the match wasn't a title match besides simply asserting that previous chess historians didn't do their research properly without specifics. Eales and Kazic both assert that it was a title match and Kazic would've had the opportunity to speak to Euwe, who hosted the event and did the foreword for his book, so I don't think it's correct to say that The match in question here was clearly not a championship match. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this into the background section of Women's World Chess Championship 1937 match sounds like a good solution. According to our article on Vera Menchik, Graf's performance in the four-game match initiated negotiations for an official world championship match in London, which never materialized. This might explain how the confusion regarding this match arose.

This newspaper reports that the match was played in Amsterdam. As I've pointed out, none of the news coverage of the match mentions it to be a world championship, so the best source we have for that claim is a book which was published forty years after the fact.

Page 15 of Tanner's book notes that "This (match) is of some interest and the source of a little confusion. A few sources (most notably Richard Eales in Chess: The History of a Game) list it as a World Championship match but the evidence is quite convincing that this was not the case". He also says "It is possible that this match was put together as a prelude to the Amsterdam event where the two women played in “different but equal" sections of the tournament", but I'm not sure which event he is referring to here. 9ninety (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah listing this information there at the 1937 article makes the most sense. So my first choice would be to merge there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(nominator) Merge into Women's World Chess Championship 1937 match per above discussion. 9ninety (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Superior Invitation

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

No indication of notability, sources are not independent, passing mentions or database entries (which don't support much of what they are used for in the article anyway[84]). No indepth independent reliable sources about the tournament found. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, it says the Tennis Archives have been cited—they can't lie!~~ Delete per nom unless significant coverage turns up, in which case ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why would we get rid of this sourced tournament just because they didn't write up 1000 sources like they do today? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are countless non-notable sporting events every day, and long-established consensus is that we only should have articles on the ones where there are indepth secondary sources? If they didn't write up these sources then, and no one has done since then, then it isn't notable. Fram (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gikomba fire

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

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) as I cannot find sources for it that are not simply routine coverage contemporary to the fire. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are multiple sources for the event and others follow-up coverage, like BBC, DW, CNN, Kenya Star, The Nation, Nairobi News FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete The Nairobi News article specifically says that the issue at the market is that fires are common, basically every year of late. This implies that there's nothing special about this fire. Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People are murdered everyday but some murders are being covered more than the other. So, if we are to follow your analogy, murders should not be covered on the encyclopaedia because obviously, people are being murdered everyday. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't think their point is that any event that happens daily should be excluded. A murder that's covered on Wikipedia has some kind of significance or notability to it. The nominated article at present doesn't have a claim of significance or notability to it, and the objections of the delete side is that the coverage appears routine. Yue🌙 07:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:MILL. Absolutely ordinary event, with no major consequences. Svartner (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. The sources provided by FuzzyMagma seem to indicate that while this event isn't notable, the market is. There's plenty of other coverage as well to meet GNG, since it's apparently one of the largest markets in East Africa. [85], [86], [87][88][89] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would help if participants reviewed the sources just brought to this discussion. And if this article is Moved (which would have to happen after AFD closure), what is the suggested new title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Flying Service Flight 209

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

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, general aviation accidents that resulted in fatalities became common in aviation. While this resulted in nine fatalities and no survivors, though tragic, the accident relates to general aviation. The article doesn't meet the notability for events. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:MILL says, "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." I don't see how that could in any way apply to aircraft accidents. Failure to meet WP:NEVENT would thus be the only valid rationale for deletion. Considering WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in particular, while the initial flurry of news reports died down after 6 September, there's still news coverage from one month after the accident[90] and at three months[91]. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Does not relate to general aviation, this was an airline-operated flight and is notable because of the oddity of the crash, something mechanical on board definetly failed aboard this crash, just looking at the nature.

We should wait on deleting this until a preliminary report or a final report are released as we have no foundation currently to show this is unnotable. Low fatalities do not determine notability.

@TG-article Lolzer3k 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm a weak delete - this did generate international news but I don't see any LASTING coverage after a simple BEFORE search. If that can be produced, I'll happily change to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was an airline flight with fatalities, and It recieved decent coverage. I think anyways we should wait for some kind of report to come out. Signor Pignolini 15:41, 22 January 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". None of the sources are secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself, with none of them providing significant or in-depth coverage of the event. I'm not sure what a preliminary/final report could bring other than maybe possible lasting effects, but regardless, we're judging the event's notability on what coverage we currently have, not on what coverage and effects we could possibly have, and as of yet, this event isn't notable enough to warrant a standalone page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was news at the time and coverage was, for some time and to some extent, WP:LASTING. It's notable and should be kept. Eelipe (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering, doesn't WP:LASTING talk about lasting effects? If so, wouldn't WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE be the correct term? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. Thank you for the correction, I meant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE! Eelipe (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Weak Keep I think we should wait out the delete until we get the preliminary report or the final report on the accident and then we go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.174.146 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t that basically saying that as of yet, the event isn’t notable? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight No, it is saying that we do not have adequete information on the accident quite yet, what they are stating here is that we shouldnt delete articles until it is confirmed that the cause of the accident was minor and was something severe or company-breaking.

Small accidents like these may expose major problems, and looking at the nature of this accident it is definetly a stand-out over the other Cessna Grand Caravan accidents i have seen, CFITS straight into the ground arent common, especially with typically well-maintained and supervised aircraft such as the above. The reason we arent getting a report immediately is because of such nature, the plane practically- no literally disinegrated just like that, no fire or anything. I have voted keep because of what i have just stated above. Lolzer3k 19:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Whatever lasting effect you believe is possible is at this point pure speculation. Nothing of what you said above is grounded in policy nor relevant in determining the event’s notability. We are looking at the sources and as of yet, none of them demonstrate the event’s notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."

This incident is still fairly recent and does not have a verifiable lasting effect determined, which is why i am strongly against the deletion of this article, such incidents are typically notable.

Which yet again is why i would prefer to wait for a preliminary report and or final report to be released on this accident so the "lasting effect" is clear and can be determined easily, And also why i have not reverted the edit adding the notability tag. Best we can do in my view is to wait for a Preliminary report to be issued.

@Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3k 20:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody advocating for a delete has ever mentioned the lack of lasting effects. Your argument is basically stating that "the event isn't notable which is why we should wait until notability might be present" which is simply not how it works. If an event isn't notable, it shouldn't have a standalone page. You've yet to address sourcing issues. It's clear that none of the sources are secondary with none of them providing significant or in-depth coverage of the event. 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. Nothing is giving this accident additional enduring significance. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OP was blocked for disruptive editing and then indef'd for block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Even with few fatalities, the article is based on enough WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can produce significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise this is a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: run-of-the-mill from an aviation point of view; no coverage beyond the initial news cycle. Usual caveats apply: the article can always be recreated in the unlikely event that this turns out to have enduring significance. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

AfDs for this article:

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

Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.

Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last AfD had limited participation and was based on an underdeveloped, poorly written article. However, that is not the case now. The nominator's rationale is unclear on how it fails SIGCOV and GNG when the sources have dedicated at least two pages to the event [92][93] (excluding background and aftermath). Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam My view is from the significant coverage guideline;

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- While the topic is covered (by the few books cited on the page), the speculation on whether a battle even happened, the years difference is alarming. I think there's just not enough information on the topic. Noorullah (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the two pages of coverage considered trivial mentions? Moreover, the speculation is not even about whether the battle occurred or not. All I see are speculations about the dates, which have already been addressed in a separate subsection. This should not be a reason for deletion. Garuda ^Talk! 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order then. @Garudam Noorullah (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a better approach. Garuda ^Talk! 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the sources for this battle. There are no significant sources for it and it does not seem notable enough to have been covered properly outside of Wikipedia. Of the sources given, only one really covers the "battle", but does not give it a name. The article goes beyond those sources and strays into original or at least uncited research. Given the lack of evidence the battle has received significant attention from independent sources, my view is it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. FrightenedPenguin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)— FrightenedPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Take a quick look at this comment. Garuda ^Talk! 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination I guess I should've made this clear, but I withdrew this nom 15 days ago. Noorullah (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can only withdraw if no one else has !voted delete. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I understand that relisting more than 2 times is not recommended, it seems to be necessary in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Kaja Kallas

Events

Proposed deletions

Tervis