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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events/archive 2

2029 British & Irish Lions tour to New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:Rumour, all sources are discussing something that might happen in Las Vegas. The tour in 2029 has not been confirmed by the British and Irish Lions. If the tour were to happen there is no evidence it will take place in New Zealand this suggestion of this is based on historical trends. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No definite information about this event, only speculation. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States of America. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No confirmation that this tour will even happen yet. Let's let the Lions announce it, which probably won't be until around the time of the Australia tour this summer. – PeeJay 13:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jhain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, None of the sources gives enough significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of this event/conflict to establish Notability (WP:N). Moreover the article focuses more on the background and the aftermath as the article only mentions 2-3 lines about the actual conflict. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [1] [2] [3] (pg 209) [4] (Page 221) [5] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Festival of Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to fail WP:NORG, the applicable guideline (covering as it does an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services), for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. A quick source analysis:

• WP:ROUTINE local news coverage that fails the WP:AUD test: [6], [7],[8], [9][10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].
• Mentions in WP:TRADES publications: [18], [19]
• Content marketing content ([20])

The article also has a promotional tone with its cheerful descriptions of the local food options available and how it "fosters community engagement." Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Organizations, and Michigan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This does not appear to have gathered fame on a national level; the lack of coverage in Gnewspapers or Gnews from outside the local area seems to support this. Seems like a fine local event, but just not quite notable enough for Wikipedia. This isn't the Angouleme festival of BD/animation or the Frankfurt Book Fair. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Bayana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG, None of the cited sources provides WP:SIGCOV of this conflict. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next German federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, can't find any reliable sources for this specific event (most point to the recently concluded election). ToThAc (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. ToThAc (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Elections in Germany. Generic perennial problem, can be redirected to appropriate dated target at later date. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ToThAc is technically right, but we know there will be a next election and we know reliable sources will appear pretty quickly. There are (sourced) things we can say about the election now. We might as well keep the article rather than just re-creating it in a few weeks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this article will be kept, it really should be renamed, probably "2029 German federal election". jolielover♥talk 16:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really care about this situation???? Useful1 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why delete if we're gonna have to have the article at some point anyway? Pointless. I'd get if it was the article stating a definite year, but it's just "next", which i don't see as violating WP:CRYSTAL. PLMandarynka (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I had initially made the article in Draft:Next German federal election, but moved the content to this page once someone else had made it. I think at this point it is a tad too early for the page to exist, given that no meaningful thing can be said about the election beyond when it is expected to be held. Once more information comes out, including the formation of the next government and opinion polls, then it is obvious that this article will exist, as is the case for other countries. Gust Justice (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep Well, we know it is going to happen. Unless some event happens that is like, CRAZY. We do not have evidence for that. I would alsoKeep name because we don't know if Merz will call a snap election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The actual content is a Frankenstein's monster of content from other articles. We do not need the German electoral system spelled out every time they have an election (notwithstanding that it could be changed by the time there is an actual election), and the current composition of the legislature and names of its leaders properly belong to an article on the current government. Take that out, and this is a placeholder for "there is expected to be an election," presumably naming a date on or by which it is to happen. We really need to stop creating these "next election" articles and wait until an election is called or draws nigh to start the article on that election. Mangoe (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; per consistency: there is an article Next United Kingdom general election; 2028 United States presidential election; Next French legislative election – Do I need to give further examples? Why should Germany be treated differently here? Mangoe's arguments in all honor, but that would have to be clarified in general. As things stand, there are such next-election-articles and this should be possible regardless of the country.Alektor89 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Runcorn and Helsby recall petition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. I redirected this to Mike_Amesbury#Assault_conviction but was reverted. This petition may happen if some conditions are fulfilled, at which time it may become notable (or perhaps only if it gets the required number of signatures), but for now it is something better treated in one or two sentences at the target article. Fram (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. Fram (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is common practice to have articles for recall petitions (See here for example). He has already met the trigger point by the custodial sentence that he has received so barring any changes, this will occur. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A recall petition hasn't been triggered, as Amesbury hasn't exhausted all appeals. It's also possible that Amesbury resigns before the petition occurs. CR (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:CRYSTAL allows for articles that are likely, even if they are not nailed on. Amesbury only has one appeal route possible: he pleaded guilty, so he can only appeal on the severity of the sentence. It is unlikely that Amesbury's appeal of the sentence will see it sufficiently reduced so as to avoid a petition. I don't think we need to worry about that. It is more probable that Amesbury will just resign, which would obviate the need for the petition, but what we have done in past such cases is start with an election petition article and then re-name it to a by-election article, carrying over content. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect at least until the petition occurs - if it occurs. WP:CRYSTAL applies CR (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article and reverted Fram's redirect. The suggestion that this comes under WP:NOTNEWS is weak and seems to misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS. We have or have had articles for every prior UK Parliamentary election petition. (There have been 6 and 5 led to by-elections, in which cases the election petition article evolved into a by-election article.) The claim that This petition may happen if some conditions are fulfilled is misleading. Amesbury has received a sentence that will lead to a petition. There are 3 events that can override that. (1) The most likely is that Amesbury can just resign, but then we just convert this article into a by-election article, carrying over the content: there is no need for deletion because of that possibility. (2) Amesbury can appeal his sentence: he pleaded guilty, so he can only appeal the sentence. It is unlikely that such an appeal would produce such a reduction in the sentence that a petition would still not be triggered. (This is discussed in the article.) (3) A general election is called. Very unlikely! We have multiple sources talking about an election petition and I promise you there will be more in the next 48 hours. You can already bet on the outcome of the by-election at Ladbrokes (Reform UK are favourites)! We have this conversation every time a petition or by-election is imminent. We usually end up keeping the article concerned. Should something unexpected happen, we can redirect then. Right now, readers will be looking for information on these events. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Should something unexpected happen, we can redirect then." That's doing things the wrong way round, and is exactly why we have WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:CRYSTAL. "We have multiple sources talking about an election petition ", yes, see my previous sentence. If and when the conditions are met and a petition actually happens, then is the time to change the redirect into an article. "We have this conversation every time a petition or by-election is imminent." Er, then perhaps it is time another approach is tested? As I haven't participated in these previous discussion IIRC, it seems that quite a few editors have the same concerns about such premature creations. Fram (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Runcorn and Helsby (UK Parliament constituency). Moondragon21 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is well-sourced and no case has been made why NOTNEWS should apply here. Cortador (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this is now very likely to happen, it's not quite a foregone conclusion. As the article itself points out, all the appeal procedures have to be completed first. The appeal court could reduce his sentence to e.g. a community service order (unlikely but not impossible), or he could resign, or he could die. It's not a case of WP:NOTNEWS (if this does happen it would be news) but WP:CRYSTAL. PatGallacher (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL does not require that something is a foregone conclusion. We often have articles for things being very likely to happen. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He's met the bar for a Recall Petition, so the only way this doesn't happen is if he resigns before it's formally called, in which case this article is just going to be named 2025 Runcorn and Helsby by-election, so there's nothing to be gained in waiting.MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The requirements for a recall petition have been met so WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. Assuming the petition succeeds, this will be renamed 2025 Runcorn and Helsby by-election. As we have allowed articles for recall petitions to have a stand alone page, and as the sources meet GNG, the page should be kept. --Enos733 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No censorship of Labour misdeeds, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:A974:DD4F:454C:265D (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep MP being convicted and jailed is news, Recall petitions are established events in the UK now, and by-elections are long established as notable with local and national coverage (I'd argue separate articles for UK by-elections have 'grandfather rights' here). doktorb _words^deeds 04:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge WP:TOOSOON the existence of this article is misleading as by appearing in search results it gives the impression there is a petition in existence, when there isn't. It doesn't meet any of the exceptions of in WP:CRYSTAL as while we can be almost certain there will be forthcoming Olympics or presidential elections, it is still very possible there will be a different outcome. Merge to Mike_Amesbury#Assault_conviction. Orange sticker (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply We don't have an article on "2025 papal conclave", even though there is the serious possibility that it will happen, through the death or resignation of the current pope. We don't create by-election articles for a constituency where the MP is known to have a terminal illness. PatGallacher (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nalos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian112 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waisey (Waisy, Karwan Salih (2015-07-15). "The Kurdish Peshmarga Force 1943-1975". Global Journal of Human-Social Science. 15 (D2): 27–46. ISSN 2249-460X.) listed as "Further reading" does not mention this engagement. I can also find no explicit mention of this battle in what I assume is Lortz - while not linked here, it appears to be Michael G. Lortz. "Chapter 1: Introduction: The Kurdish Warrior Tradition and the Importance of the Peshmerga" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-10-29. Retrieved 2014-10-16. as used in Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. There is a very brief mention in Eagletoh of a clash at Nalos in 16 March 1947 "On 16 March at Nalos the Barzarnis killed some twelve Iranian soldiers including one officer, and took five officers and sixty-eight soldiers prisoner" (p. 120). I cannot see sufficient coverage in the sources given to warrant an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Inadequate rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 20:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: Passing mention in sources, at best should be a mention in an article with a larger scope, but not really enough in the sources to help show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USA Cup/Intercontinental Cup 1950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Confusing, unreferenced article in which the author tries to make a 1950 tour to America by Turkish football team Beşiktaş J.K. into an international cup. Several other clubs also toured the US in 1950 including Manchester United and Hamburg SC. I can find no evidence that any of these tours were US or international cups. John B123 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Turkey, and United States of America. John B123 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure it needs it's own page, certainly an interesting piece of history. The article is not unreferenced, it has external links which act as such so I find your nomination slightly floored. My suggestion is too add a sentence or two too the 1911–1959: initial years of football section on Beşiktaş J.K.. Regards Govvy (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Beşiktaş J.K.: I'm inclined to agree with Govvy here, it certainly seems notable enough to mention with a few sentences on the Beşiktaş J.K. page, but I haven't found enough WP:LASTING coverage to warrant it's own article per WP:NSPORTSEVENT (although someone familiar with Turkish sources may be able to find more). Having said that, the quality of prose isn't great, so I think it would require some copy editing. As an aside, @Jvore7, looking at your talk page, you have had a very similar article speedily deleted, and have moved this article back to mainspace two times after being draftified by other editors. I have attempted to communicate with you on your talk page, are you able to interact with the discussion here? FozzieHey (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Beşiktaş J.K.#1911–1959: initial years of football – Per Gowy. Could also be improved in an article for the club's 1950–51 season. Svartner (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khoy Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After looking for suitable sources, I believe this event does not meet WP:NEVENT, despite the claim of 3,800 killed in one source. I cannot find even one source, including those cited, that deals with this event in depth (note there was a different massacre in Khoy in 1915). (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tur Abdin Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOR and WP:NOPAGE issues. The Sayfo (also known as Assyrian genocide) did occur in the Tur Abdin region and many people were killed. However, calling it the "Tur Abdin massacre" is misleading and not found in the sources cited. Instead, there were a variety of massacres in different locations. There is more information in Sayfo#Tur Abdin than in this article, and it will come up in searches for this term. Therefore, I think that deletion or redirect is the best option. (t · c) buidhe 08:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a mess of WP:OR Koshuri ^(グ) 17:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1st Gulf cup for Veteran Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not sure if we need a season article for an exhibition competition between retired players. Fails WP:GNG in my book, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What is there to say about this competition? This page is just stats and whatnot. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Kuwait. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how exactly to format the reply, but I think it is notable due to extensive media coverage in the middle east, and a season article was created due to plans that this will be a biannual tournament to accompany the senior men's tournament. Exhibition matches and tournments have wikipedia articles if they are notable, such as Soccer Aid, Sidemen Charity Match, and 2025 NBA All-Star Game amongst many others Alitheboss55 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added a number of new sources. Naturally the tournament has not started yet so more sources will be added as events occur, but I think there is notable coverage from around the region about this event. Alitheboss55 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP has WP:SIGCOV Alitheboss55 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Alton mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Falls well below Wikipedia’s notability standards.

Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia. Not all elections are covered, and Alton mayoral races are not elections which Wikipedia would treat as holding inherit notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sigcov from non-local sources. Per WP:DIVERSE, this doesn't meet the "national or international coverage" stipulation, and thus isn't notable. Jordano⁵³ 15:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think that Jordano53's points summarize it best. There is nothing to believe this election is going to pass a test of historic significance.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aurora, Illinois mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Falls below Wikipedia’s notability standards. At this point, it’s a routine election that could be adequately covered within the incumbent mayor (Irvin)’s article.

Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia. Not all elections are covered, and Aurora mayoral races are not elections which Wikipedia would treat as holding inherit and perennial notability. Certainly, elections in Aurora COULD have factors that allow it to reach such note. But at this point: there are no factors that make this particular Aurora mayoral election independent notable. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a lot of your points here, but the mayor himself is notable enough for a page. There also seems to be some level of notability with numerous reliable sources regarding this specific election Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer The mayor is notable, that is why he has his own article. This election is not itself notable enough, hence why it should not. It can also be covered within his article. Routine local coverage of an election does not establish particular notability. SecretName101 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Th majority of the coverage is from the Chicago Tribune, not necessarily local to Aurora, the second largest city in the state. Usually even local newspapers only release minimal coverage of mayoral races, which is also not routine Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer Tribune serves as a paper of standard for greater Chicagoland, so routine coverage of a municipal election in its metro area is to be entirely expected.

Tribune coverage could help demonstrate notability if it went well beyond expected routine coverage (main front page headline of the print edition, frequent in-depth coverage, etc.), but routine Tribune coverage does not really establish much beyond its existence. One would expect the Tribune to provide some level of coverage to any Aurora mayoral election simply by virtue of the Tribune's role as a paper of standard.

If this election somehow becomes more than routine, it can obtain note. But at this stage, it does not have sufficient independent note for an article.

Yes Aurora is the second-largest city in Illinois, but such a population stat does not give its mayoral elections high note. Aurora is not really a major epicenter of the state/regional politics or economy. It's a populous, but as a suburb/exburb of Chicago its politics are not at the epicenter of its region. Hence why there is not inherent note of each election: the outcomes of its mayoral elections are not expected to cause ripples that are felt outside of it.

Population does not always correlate to the inherently notability of local politics. Dallas and Phoenix, for instance, have many high-population suburbs. Those suburbs have hardly-notable mayor offices. Meanwhile there are similarly populous and less populous cities that are notable for a variety of factors, and whose mayoral elections carry some note. And even then, many such cities have master articles for their mayoral elections, with very few receiving dedicated spun-off articles. Also, different cities allot different power to their mayoralties: some cities have mayoralties that are more powerful than the mayoralties of similarly-situated cities.

For examples of cities whose mayoralties have electoral note that perhaps exceeds the mere population of the city (and reasons why their note would exceed mere population stats):

• Hartford, Connecticut: anchor city of a large metro (47th most populous metro area), state capitol, major economic center (insurance capitol of the world, a main economic hub of New England
• Portland, Maine: anchor city of a sizable metro, commercial hub of Maine and upper New England
• Providence: anchor of a large metro (39th most populous metro area); state capitol and most populous city in state
• Burlington, VT: state capitol and main economic center, with an unusual local politics (successes of third parties, etc.) --only some elections have received articles, and I'd probably advise consolidating most into a master article on mayoral elections in the city instead
• Springfield, Mass: political/economic anchor of sizable metro area
• Worcester, Mass: political/economic anchor of sizable metro area

SecretName101 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sigcov from non-local sources. Even the Chicago Tribune coverage is through the Aurora Beacon-News, which is just more local coverage. Per WP:DIVERSE, this doesn't meet the "national or international coverage" stipulation, and thus isn't notable. Jordano⁵³ 15:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think that Jordano53's points summarize it best. There is nothing to believe this election is going to pass a test of historic significance.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria ICT Fest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sourced to primary sources and routine coverage. Not notable. Princess of Ara 18:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Economics, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen Airlines Flight 9648 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This minor, non-fatal airline incident fails WP:NEVENT. It got a burst of (mostly tabloid) coverage in the few days after the event, but there is no WP:LASTING effect or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Without sustained coverage, this also fails WP:NOTNEWS and thus WP:GNG. (Fram's PROD was contested by page creator, who is now blocked as a sock.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and China. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or weak keep. On a purely WP:GNG basis, there's enough sourcing to justify notability. It's definitely not a great article, but that's why I asked this article to be restored so it could be improved. guninvalid (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: No one here has given any real reasons not to Draftify this article. It definitely needs work but it could be draftified while key details are merged into other articles. guninvalid (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am fine with draftifying to facilitate a merge to other articles. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guninvalid, no one except Cunard have given reasons to draftify because the subject so clearly fails WP:NEVENT there's no point in draftifying to wait for additional coverage 8+ years after the event. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a minor incident with no coverage beyond the initial news cycle and no lasting effects. A clear WP:NEVENT fail. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This event seems to have had no lasting effects and no sustained coverage. The most recent source seems to be this SCMP article from two weeks after the incident; the article mentions no lasting effects beyond: "After the incident, the head and deputy of Taizhou’s civil aviation administration were suspended from their duties." Since the creator is a blocked sock and the article has been thoroughly refbombed, including with a source about a completely different incident, I will not do my own search for sources. Toadspike [Talk] 08:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is a corresponding article on the Chinese-langue Wikipedia at zh:深圳航空9648号班机纵火事件. The incident happened on 26 July 2015. I did a search for sources using these search terms:
  1. "深圳航空" 9648
  2. "ZH9648"
  3. "Shenzhen Airlines" 9648
  All of the significant coverage I found in Chinese-language and English-language sources was published in July 2015 or early August 2015. This 2023 paper from the journal Computer Science and Applications (Chinese: 计算机科学与应用) mentions the incident in a single sentence: "... 深航ZH9648航班机上纵火事件 ..." which is translated to "... arson incident on Shenzhen Airlines Flight ZH9648 ...".

  The airline incident does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage so should not have a standalone article. I think that it could be covered in a newly created section at Shenzhen Airlines#Incidents per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Some of the material in this article could be merged/redirected there. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a mention (diff), in my opinion this covers all the merge-able content and then some. A redirect to Shenzhen Airlines#Incidents looks like a good ATD. Toadspike [Talk] 20:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Samarkhel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Quite the same rationale as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel: The article is possibly a WP:HOAX, with no sign of independent significant coverage and only passing mentions: The Mujahideen managed to seize Samarkhel village east of Jalalabad in the sources. Also it look likes it's a WP:SAMETYPEFORK. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Terrorism, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Siege of Samarkhel is the original article before someone made the “First Siege of Samarkhel” article. They deleted the entire article to make it but I luckily reverted it. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources that mention the fighting in Samarkhel:

https://www.rebellionresearch.com/what-happened-in-the-battle-of-jalalabad

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/13/world/jalalabad-shows-its-recovery-as-siege-by-rebels-dwindles.html

However, this “siege” was part of the Battle of Jalalabad but I did not make this article. I don’t know whose idea was it to call it a “siege”. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the seige, one of the sources only mentions that Samarkhel was seized ^[1]. Even if a seige did take place, it isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Timtim76 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. Per nomination. Rubik's Cube 3x3 20:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This would seem like a slam-dunk deletion but two editors who argued for Deletion are very inexperienced which makes me wonder how they turned up at this AFD. This situation causes me to relist this discussion to get more feedback from our experienced AFD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Going through the 14 sources currently on the article as I write this.

- [21] Appears to be LLM/AI generated based on the website, lack of sources, and lack of author. It also fails to mention a seige of Samarkhil (note the spelling difference) but does mention that the village was part of the defenses of Jalalabad (if we can trust what it says).

- [22] A reliable source about the Battle/Siege of Jalalabad that does mention Samarkhel in passing but it doesn't appear that there was any significant siege of that location.

- [23] Another reliable source talking about the siege of Jalalabad, no mention of Samarkhel.

- [24] Page 45 as the citation claims is about the year 1000 CE, so it is only 980 or so years off. The book does mention Jalalabad (unsure of full context though) with only a brief mention of Samarkhel.

- [25] Another solid looking book that mentions Samarkhel as a location but nothing about a siege.

- [26] same source as number [2]

- [27] no mention of Samarkhil or Samarkhel, only 2 results for Jalalabad.

- [28] This mentions Samarkhel as a frontline, but in the battle of Jalalabad, not its own siege.

- [29] Same source as [4], this time the page marked is the singular mention of Samakhel, but again it appears to be a brief mention, not its own topic.

- [30] mentions Samarkhel (Mountain) purely in relation to being near Jalalabad.

- [31] Unfortunately Google books doesn't have Search Inside for this one so No Comment.

- [32] Same as [1], just as bad now as it was then.

- [33] Someone with military history training might tell me if this is important? but as far as I can tell it just talks about Jalalabad.

- [34] Same as [8]

Overall I think this article was mistakenly created from the Siege/Battle of Jalalabad article and should be deleted. It doesn't appear as if there was any actual siege that occurred for this to even be worthy of a redirect to the main page instead. Moritoriko (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Patti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Why is this even a battle? What significance does this battle give? It's just a Mughal victory of 10,000 versus five, Where is the notability or even significance at all of this? Noorullah (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like a totally daft way of presenting what in the history books (including the ones cited) is called "the rebellion [or revolt] of Qasim Khan", a short-lived rebellion against Mughlani Begum. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Page was vandalized by IPs and I added the best suitable changes back from an old revision. RangersRus (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't change a thing. It's not the figures. Its the description of this as a battle of Patti at all, when the sources, including Hari Ram Gupta the first one cited, are talking about Qasim Khan's rebellion. Most sources outright label it that way, in titles or in marginal summaries. (See, for example, the margin of Chhabra, G. S. (1968). Advanced History of the Punjab: Guru and post-Guru period upto Ranjit Singh. Vol. 1. New Academic Publishing. p. 400. LCCN 70913973. OL 5746881M. Qasim Khan's revolt.)

    That version of Gupta's History cited doesn't, choosing a tabloid-esque section title, but begins the account with "Bhikari Khan's rebellion was followed by that of Qasim Khan, a Turk, […]". Gupta's 1944, 1952, and 1978 editions of History of the Sikhs start the very same account with the section title "Qasim Khan's Rebellion, C. March 1754". It'a also how xyr earlier Later Mughal History Of The Panjab at the Internet Archive reads.

    It turns out that the version of Gupta cited here is a posthumous edition from 2007, from "Munshiram Manohai lal Publishers Pvt. Ltd." who appear to have sensationalized Gupta's original text. That is still no excuse for writing this as a "battle of", though, when the prose below the title is largely the same and describes a failed revolt right down to its ignominious end: "The same day they cut off his tent ropes, dragged him to the Begam who confined him within her palace enclosure and kept him under strict guard.".

    Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • My note was just awareness about the mess and incorrect details on the page before I reverted to last suitable revision. You made some talking points for discussion. What title or description do you suggest? RangersRus (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought about this as I was checking all of those history books, and if I were writing I wouldn't be writing a standalone article at all, but expanding Mughlani Begum, because her and the development of the Rakhi system are what the historians are talking about. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        I see, so possible Merge instead of outright deletion? Sounds fine by me. Noorullah (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero mentions of any such "battle" in reliable sources available to me. Possibly merge salvagable content without redirect as per the above discussion. utcursch | talk 22:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Annagudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a single mention of 'Annagudi' [35] in the sources, let alone having a conflict around this. Another poorly cited source which doesn't have pages and relies on 2 lines of mentions in footnotes of the book [36], doesn't give confidence that this event pass WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, Europe, and United Kingdom. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The proposer couldn't find "Annagudi" in the first source because the place is no longer known as Annagudi. The place is represented in the source as Kumbakonam[37]. The article indeed needs to get a fresh work, but not ready for deletion. One of the major reason for me to oppose the deletion is, it is a named battle, with much significance in the Second Anglo-Mysore War. The event is called by the name "Battle of Annagudi" by Spencer C. Tucker[38] (p-955), C. Hayavadana Rao [39] p-1317), and Narendra Krishna Sonna [40] (p-219). What makes it more notable is, it was the battle where Sir John Braithwaite, 1st Baronet got captured and imprisoned for 2 years. We get a lot of sources covering the event, eg:[41], [42], [43], [44]... Many Early British records are too available mentioning this conflict, which itself describe its importance.--Imperial^[AFCND] 15:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if it's named as 'Kumbakonam' I still found no mentions of the event besides in the appendix [45] which gives no insights of the 'battle'. This is inaccessible, even searching through sort method I found no more than 3 lines of coverage. C. Hayavadana Rao was a British official and his work by default falls into WP:RAJ and most of the last sources are also either old or Raj ones, which left us only two sources above which doesn't have enough significant coverage to have this topic its own article. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find any mentions in some of the sources, and the ones that do mention it, only do so briefly.^[1][2] Therefore this subject isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese–Algerian War (1790–1813) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article doesn't provide evidence of a formal declaration of war between Portugal and Algiers, nor does the peace treaty describe an end to the supposed war. Instead, this article only describes a few skirmishes between the two. Additionally, user Saguescabe gives explicit reasons in the talk page that "coincidentally" no one answered or responded to since April 2024.

• 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is well sourced. The idea that wars need a "formal declaration of war" doesn't hold much water. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a formal declaration of war is necessary to make it clear. But instead we are left with an arbitrary start and end date. There were already other skirmishes before 1790, and the result is misleadingly labeled as an "Algerian victory".

  If these skirmishes are to be mentioned, they should be placed in the article "Barbary–Portuguese conflicts". Kolno (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Undeclared war says otherwise. If you want to challenge the result, then you need to do it in the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the start and end dates being arbitrary? Without context there is no point for the article to stand on. Kolno (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Algeria, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. A quick look at the sources does not use "war" and certainly not "Portuguese–Algerian War", so this title is inappropriate original research deserving of a WP:TROUT. It's not clear to me that naval battles in 1796 should be tied to the capture of a trade ship in 1810 like this. The main source describes "Algerian-Portuguese relations during the Ottoman period", but not an ongoing or specific war between these dates, but rather a series of confrontations. I think Barbary–Portuguese conflicts would be the best place to include this information. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This reliable source mentions the1790-1793 war between Portugal and the Regency of Algiers. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A single phrase without context doesn't prove anything. Kolno (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It proves that the claim that the sources does not use "war" is not quite correct. M.Bitton (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is rather useless, as the source says the war was 1790-1793, yet this article has zero content about this time period except that a truce was reached in 1793, and the rest of the article was events following that. Comparing that one line to this article is a non sequitur. Reywas92^Talk 05:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If Raïs Hamidou had been involved in this purported war, it would be in many history books, including xyr biographies. It is not. Rather, Hamidou's biographies (e.g. Cory 2012, p. 11 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCory2012 (help)) generally portray xem as the last hurrah of the corsairs, a problem for European states that stretched over many centuries. Reading the Fkair source, that's what Fkair is actually saying too. Fkair starts the narrative way back in the 15th century, passing through the Battle of Mers-el-Kébir (1501) along the way (p.235), and the idea that there's some 1790–1813 "war" is being cherrypicked out of a source that talks about how "Ces affrontements avaient un peu diminué au cours des dix-septième siècle et les deux premiers tiers du XVIIIe siècle." (p.237) and doesn't even have the year 1790 mentioned. Far from being well-sourced, this is misrepresenting its major source to synthesize a primarily fictional view of history. This is original research. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cory, Stephen (2012). "Hamidou". In Akyeampong, Emmanuel Kwaku; Gates Jr, Henry Louis (eds.). Dictionary of African Biography. OUP USA. pp. 11–13. ISBN 9780195382075.
• Delete appears to be WP:OR. Being immediately confronted by a 1685 picture to illustrate a supposed event beginning in 1790 should raise some concerns. The key text supporting the article, Adelkader Fkair's "Les Relations Algero-Portugaise Pendant La Periode Ottomane", makes no mention whatsover of a "war" beginning in 1790. There is discussion of contestation over Mediterranean hegemony and passage through the Gibraltar Strait. The is discussion over ongoing maritime skirmishes and acts of piracy, which diminish in the first two thirds of the 18th Century (as quoted above) but which then escalate (a "dangerous escalation", but no "war") in the last third of the 18th Century and first decade of the 19th following the peace treaty between Spain and Algers ("Elle devenait une escalade dangereuse dans le dernier tiers du XVIIIe siècle, et la première décennie du XIXe siècle, surtout après la conclusion du traité entre l'Algérie et l'Espagne en 1786" p.237). There is discussion of a series of truces and an ultimately British-mediated treaty of peace and friendship. But there is no mention whatsover of a "state of war" existing between the two, let alone an event in 1790 to characterise a specific outbreak of war. The history of the Portuguese Navy, VIAGENS E OPERAÇÕES NAVAIS (1668–1823), (2022, published by Academia de Marinha) makes no mention of a Portugese war beginning in 1790; it does however detail issues of piracy and discusses a Spanish declaration of war (but not Portuguese) and the Spanish treaty in the mid 1780s (see pp 203-212). Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This reliable source mentions the 1790-1793 war between Portugal and the Regency of Algiers. The source doesn't refer to a "1790-1793 war", the source is indicating the period when US ships were also protected by the Portuguese, it is not making a statement about a start or finish of a war, just indicating war in existence. Nevertheless, this is the only source which mentions war and, FWIW, in the soruce there is no citation supporting this. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qafë Prush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

THis 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]

Both trivial mentions, about a person. Notability is not inherited. We need sources to establish THE BATTLE in and of itself is notable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that battle isn't notable but it shouldn't be deleted Unknown General17 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not notable (as you now admit) it fails wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 23 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]

Anadrinë offensive and Battle of Jezerc started the "frontal-war" in their respective regions; Anadrinë offensive for the Paštrik and Anadrinë region while Battle of Jezerc for the Ferizaj and Neredimë region. Battle of Rezalla was the first large-scale battle of the entire Kosovo conflict so for "Kosovo War-standards" they are pretty notable. For Battle of Hajla Pass there is currently a discussion and Surkis ambush is minor and has also been nominated. Peja mapping (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss this article, not any others. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Peja mapping (talk) 14:49, 13 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]

• Delete fails WP:GNG; the only thing worth noting was Luan Haradinaj's death, and the events are already covered on his article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So it only fails WP:GNG? No need for deletion? Unknown General17 (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is not notable it is OK to have an article on it? Have you actually read GNG? 11:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ad Dair shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

@PARAKANYAA, did you get around to doing a more thorough search? -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I'm still uncertain. The coverage didn't immediately fall off, there was coverage throughout 2016, but after that it gets hard to search especially because different sources write the name of the place and the perpetrator differently. What I am looking at indicates there is probably more I am not finding but it's hard to tell. There is a non-zero amount after that but it's difficult for me to evaluate the reliability of Arabic sourcing and a lot isn't showing up in google. This seems to be viewed as a decidedly unusual crime there, and the coverage was decently in depth from what I can find, so it's not like it would be stuck as a stub forever.

I think an OK merge would be Al Dayer (which according to the saudi sources, is where this actually happened - I think ad dair is a very small town in Al Dayer? it's somewhere in that governate for sure. 2021 saudi sources say "Education Office in Al-Dayer Governorate, east of Jazan") to a history section. Seems to be one of the more significant things to have happened there (at least enough to be reported internationally). Preferential to merge unless additional sourcing is found, but otherwise weak keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:15, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, The Arabic wiki's page only has coverage from the immediate days surrounding the shooting as best as I can tell, not indicative of sustained coverage, imv. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough Arabic sources for this article to be kept. Expansion would be good. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient sourcing has been provided. Cortador (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amioun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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. UninvitedCompany 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. UninvitedCompany 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Flying Service Flight 209 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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[46] and at three months[47]. --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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Recusing lost discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know where you are coming from but there was a lot of news around the crash so I think that it is notable enough. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because there was news coverage doesn't automatically make the event notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nobody has demonstrated significant/continuing coverage, probably because there isn't any. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted the existence of news coverage after one month (September 2024) and three months (November) in the first comment. There has also been a recent news report, from the day before yesterday, describing the site and the lack of updates from the investigation.[48]. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC), 02:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I'll lodge a weak keep in that case. It's not a lot, but there is some continued coverage here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]