Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events.

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[edit]

Battle of Doljești and Orbic[edit]

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

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important Party[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturne Party[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Jersey earthquake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Now that the dust has settled down it is quite evident that no lasting coverage exists for this. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Run of the mill earthquake that is unnotable, this wouldn't be an article if it occurred anywhere else in the world Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons I stated in the previous nomination. This was an exceedingly rare event and regardless if it doesn’t have lasting coverage shouldn’t mean it isn’t notable. Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after.--MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rarity is not notability.

>Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after

Because the event was just news, nothing more. Notable events get reporting outside of just news.

WP:NEVENT is the relevant notability guideline here which has not been met. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we sure there is no lasting coverage? by the way, the continued aftershocks are relevant. 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continued aftershocks are not relevant to lasting coverage of the earthquake, or else this would be the '2024 New Jersey earthquakes' Traumnovelle (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftershocks were deemed relevant for the 2024 Noto earthquake and 2024 Hualien earthquake. Besides the first reference isn't even about an aftershock. --2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is about repairing the damage, routine for the event.

The two other articles have references which show lasting impact and coverage such as [1] and [2]

Also you are comparing earthquakes more than a hundred times the power with over a thousand casualties each to one that had not a single casualty. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Trout Slap The sources demonstrate global coverage in news and scientific publications. The previous AfD closed as Keep just weeks ago and nothing has changed. It's all relative. For example, at a whopping 1,803 feet (550 m), High Point (New Jersey) is an article for the tallest mountain in New Jersey, which would be a pimple in California, Colorado or Alaska. This was the strongest quake in the state in 240 years, and I'd be more than comfortable with the pace of four New Jersey earthquake articles every millennium, and the next one appearing somewhere in the 2260s. So the AfD rationalization is that it's already weeks past the earthquake and there isn't daily coverage so we need to delete the article? Time to whip out the trout and thrash it as needed. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible example, that mountain has a state park and ski park, both of which confer notability beyond simply being a mountain.

Maybe I missed a link but I do not see any scientific publications in the reference list. WP:NEVENT is the relevant guideline.

WP:EVENTCRIT, fails that.

WP:LASTING, gives quite a clear example as to why this is not notable.

WP:GEOSCOPE 'such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article'

WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is satisfied based on the scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources about the earthquake. The earthquake itself occurred mere weeks ago and it is far, far too soon to be whining about WP:PERSISTENCE, which explicitly says "this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not". Come back in a few years and we can discuss as a community. Until then, move on. Alansohn (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if it is too soon to determine notability then it is too soon to have an article. GNG is also a presumption of notability and the relevant criteria for this article is NEVENT. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York[edit]

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

This poorly referenced substub should be redirected to the small but better referenced section at Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Sentencing. Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff. No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection. Currently im choosing to keep it up.

If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.

~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12: you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open. And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.

Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia. But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe. ruth Bader yinzburg (talk) ★

Delete. There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place. Keivan.f^Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Poland. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mannheim stabbing[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to indicate that this will generate significant lasting coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

1. The event has a lot of news coverage

2. There is a clear perpetrator who was caught on camera

3. There are multiple victims

4. The police have released a report on the incident in its immediate aftermath Salfanto (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that this is only the first day of the event right? Salfanto (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is all the more reason why we should not have an article on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The attack has received widespread global attention and clear impact on the highest political levels in Germany for a politically motivated attack on notable Islam-critic Michael Stürzenberger. Clear indications that this will have significant lasting impact/coverage. See also Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and 2024 Wakeley church stabbing (bishop Mari Emmanuel) for similar recent attacks. Thismess (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread coverage. Obvious keep. Thriley (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nominator have a history of deletion nomination which fail to pass, its obvious that this guy have no idea about the deletion criteria Afif Brika1 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you attacking the editor and not the nomination itself? I looked through his past nominations and they were all fine and consensus agreed with him/is agreeing with him. His AfD stats show 75%+ which is a fine number for AfD.

As to the article itself, even though it may achieve notability in the future it has yet to. WP:TOOSOON applies here and we should not be creating these articles the minute these events occur. Thus I support the nomination in Delete (Or turning into a draft) until it is actually possible for notability to be ascertained. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only agreeing with the editor above, but considering the past week of news regarding the surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, this attack will surely stir something in the coming days/weeks.

Volkish Kurden (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Michael Stürzenberger would appear to be a notable victim and the perpetrator is likely to face trial. There is likely to be ongoing media coverage. At least allow the German judicial processes to run their course, before passing final judgement. This incident is already a sub-article of the Michael Stürzenberger, so a Merger with that article is also an alternative to deletion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michael Stürzenberger. There are alot of WP:CRYSTAL arguments here. I see no reason why this can't be covered in another article for the time being. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and Salman Rushdie are separate articles; and also taking into account that there were others affected in the attack besides Michael Stürzenberger himself, I think it is best to keep them as independent articles.
ComradeHektor (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Not even a day has passed since the event. The initial news coverage has not passed yet, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. The attack also involves notable activist and critic of Islam Michael Stürzenberger. Also considering the recent stabbing attacks in Australia (2024 Wakeley church stabbing and Bondi Junction stabbings) still in the news cycle and the current surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, I think there will be signifiant news coverage in the next few days. 106.71.58.30 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable people involved and the whole event was recorded which will of course circulate the internet for years to come, and therefore I think deserves a stand-alone article. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

when a politician is attacked, it is notable and important for history/archive/future reference. Compare with shooting of Slovak prime minister.
it already has very significant coverage not only in Germany but internationally - every major newspaper in Sweden ran a story.
this will become a major thing in right-wing circles as well as anti-immigration circles. That makes a Wikipedia-article and factual foundation even more important.

83.185.46.97 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of national and international coverage, high-profile and public incident, multiple victims, etc. Johndavies837 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no doubt in that in my opinion Braganza (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the keep votes readWP:NOTNEWS. Altho having read that the first victim is notable I'd amend my opinion to a merge to this unpleasant individual's article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I know nothing about the person in question, but noted that you seem to hold unfavorable views of him. Quote: "merge to this unpleasant individual's article".
is it possible that your negative views of the person affect your judgement?
you are very alone in thinking that this shouldn't be a standalone article.

83.185.46.97 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge to Michael Stürzenberger: This is a BLP violation. Low profile individuals have been named in this article as having committed crimes without any conviction being obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME this shouldn't be happening. This needs to be sent to draft at the very least. However it would be better to merge any useful material to the Michael Stürzenberger article as they seem to be the only notable person in this incident. TarnishedPath^talk 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event has caused a widespread media-echo, at least in the German-speaking countries. There's also an outrage, how this could happen. Yes, we are looking at a party/movement that is Islam-critical to Anti-Islamic, and attacker who seems to be from Afghanistan (so likely a Muslim), but who has lived in Germany for some time and is married to a German woman. It is likely that this event will stay in the heads of the people, and not be linked to one of the proponents of the party who organized the event where it happened. In that context, the focus should be to keep this article, and to amend what is missing from the German-language version, rather than deleting it.--Eptalon (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job of radicalizing people; keep it up! 172.56.105.187 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean excrement balloon incident[edit]

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

I nominated for deletion; think the content of the article should be merged into Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. Reasoning: there's just not much else to say about this incident other than what's in the few news articles about it. It falls into the context of the balloon propaganda campaign, and doesn't have enough separate notability imo. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, multiple news sources have had articles about it, including Reuters, (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-alert-balloons-dropping-trash-north-2024-05-29/) BBC, (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nn2p32zrzo.amp) CNN, (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/29/asia/north-korea-trash-balloons-intl-hnk) CBS, (https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/north-korea-south-korea-trash-balloons/) and NBC. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna154435) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainDew20 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For others reading, note that I had posted on the talk page with the deletion nomination because I am an IP user and can't create pages. This user created the deletion discussion page, and I'm not sure if they saw my post (verbatim matches the current deletion nom rationale) before making this comment.

Now direct response to this comment: my point is not that the event doesn't have coverage, my point is that the event is not independently significant enough from the Balloon propaganda campaigns page to merit its own article. WP:NOPAGE is relevant I think here.

Note WP:NSUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP. I think you can make an argument that we should wait a bit more to see if coverage is separate enough: maybe this sparks a huge diplomatic incident with significant consequences. But I'm doubtful that will happen; worse events have happened with basically zero meaningful change to inter-Korean relations. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I pull up coverage in Reuters, NBC News, The Independent and what's given now in the article. This incident seems to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to say, as the balloons also contained CD's and leaflets, in addition to all the other stuff mentioned [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separately notable from what's in the Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea article? And to clarify, I wasn't trying to say the excrement balloon article can't be expanded more. I was trying to say that, based on the news articles, there's not much more to say that differs from the balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea article. The overlap is really significant. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or !merge, I'm not fussed about it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: WP:NEVENTS applies, but without getting too into the weeds wrt that guideline, this event belongs contextually at Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea#North Korean counter-campaigns as this is a direct response to recent South Korean balloon campaigns, with North Korea stating that it would retaliate against the "frequent scattering of leaflets and other rubbish" in border areas by activists in the South. // "Mounds of wastepaper and filth will soon be scattered over the border areas and the interior of the ROK and it will directly experience how much effort is required to remove them"[4]. Also: the article name is really not ideal as under 10% of the balloons appear to have contained excrement. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOPAGE. Also, WP:NOTNEWS given that this happened just yesterday. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; not independently notable enough. Zanahary (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, North Korea, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rajasthan MiG-21 crash[edit]

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

The accident has a lack of sustained continued coverage. The majority of news publications do not have a sufficient (if any) amount of in depth coverage to justify a stand-alone article for this event. The event didn't demonstrate much unusualness that would make the accident notable on itself Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and India. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This event did not have a significant lasting effect. It was a routine kind of news event on an accident that is not notable. I did not find a suitable target for merging. RangersRus (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While tragic, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Russia Air Force Tupolev Tu-22M crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENTS: no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, Russia, and Ukraine. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. The accident does not have sustained continued coverage with a lack of reliable (secondary) sources and no clear notability established other than the type of aircraft itself. A merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War would be the preferable solution as the event does not warrant a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to extant entry at List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Wikipedia is not a news host, and there is nothing particularly notable or enduring about the coverage of this loss in comparison to the hundreds of others without articles. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Swing Championships[edit]

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

The three non-primary sources in this article contain only trivial coverage. A WP:BEFORE search for the event name in English and French turned up nothing usable. (In terms of precedents, there are currently no other articles on individual swing dance events, and I would expect to see one on the more significant International Lindy Hop Championships before this.) Sdkb ^talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Events, Organizations, and Canada. Sdkb ^talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Events, and Computing. toweli (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties, as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mullihambato[edit]

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

No sources found on the "Battle of Mullihambato" as described here in the vaguest of terms (with plenty of WP:WEASEL words raising red flags here – even the most basic facts are "possibly", "probably", "inconclusive" (in terms of the victor), and "unknown") – and they are totally unverifiable. Spanish version of article also doesn't inspire confidence, as it suggests that this battle is also called the "Battle of Ambato", the "Battle of Chimborazo", or the "Battle of Nagsichi" – and it's doubtful that any source actually links all 4 of them as one and the same. (Newson (1995), Life and Death in Early Colonial Ecuador, mentions a major battle in Ambato, but that doesn't exactly match the description here, either.) Perhaps a new article could be created in the future called "Battle of Ambato" or equivalent, but if so, it would need to be backed by reliable sources. (N.B., a separate article on Battle of Chimborazo already exists in English Wikipedia.) Article as it has stood for 16 years is essentially original research (WP:OR) and should be deleted on those grounds. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ecuador. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Chillopampa per Maria Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, History of the Inca Realm, 1999, p. 116:
"The two armies had their first encounter on the plain of Chillopampa, with Huascar's troops defeating those of Atahualpa. Nevertheless, Atahualpa's generals, reacting quickly, regrouped their scattered troops and, with fresh reinforcements from Quito, were able to recover. According to Cabello de Valboa, this first encounter took place in Mullihambato, near the river, and in a second battle, luck favored Atahualpa's captains. Cieza maintains that only one battle took place. In this fighting...Atoc was taken prisoner and fell victim to the cruelty of Challcochima, who, according to some versions, had a gold-incrusted chica cup made of his skull."
There is no clear source that says that this battle occurred independently of either Chillopampa or Chimborazo, and through Rostworowski the suggestion is made that Mullihambato is Chillopampa, with the second battle, if it occurred, being Chimborazo. A redirect to the Chillopampa page would allow mention of the possibility of this name to be made there. I do not recommend a merge because the article is uncited and would require a complete rewrite to be useful in any article. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Pickersgill-Cunliffe Interesting find...but then why not simply redirect to Inca Civil War and have some corresponding text there explaining the historians' disagreement? In general I'm wary of the entire set of individual battle pages – it's almost like the Wikipedia "wars/battles" structure is driving a certain type of framing of the Inca Civil War that may not be warranted, given that there is disagreement among historians about which battles even took place to start with, and the depth of information available about a few of the battles is quite thin for many. (Even the broader Inca Civil War article itself tells a different story from what the individual battle pages and template seem to suggest.) As an example, there is yet another framing in Enduring controversies in military history: critical analyses and context (ABC-CLIO, 2017) which explores "Did the Inca Civil War play an important role in the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire?" which suggests that the main battles occurred in Tumebamba, Ambato, and Quipaipan.
On Wikipedia now we have the following pages, some of which only cite one source, and present information as though it's uncontested:
Inca Civil War

Battle of Chillopampa

Battle of Mullihambato (subject of current AfD discussion)

"Capture of Tumebamba" (soft redirect within the template to main Tumebamba page)

Battle of Huanucopampa

Battle of Quipaipán

If you go through the sequence of individual battle pages, it feels like a rather breezy creation of a bunch of articles for the sake of building a narrative that fits the template. (Not suggesting we need solve the whole problem here, just pointing out the context.) Cielquiparle (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: Agree there seems to be some confusion about the civil war, but as you say we'll stick to this article. I think that redirecting to Chillopampa is most appropriate because it appears that we do have historians mostly agreeing that this battle occurred, and that if Mullihambato existed (as the same battle or a different one) it was directly connected to it. People searching for these events are more likely to go to Chillopampa, which isn't actually mentioned in the main article! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inca Civil War: I just don't see why this should redirect to another battle, this would confuse readers who are looking for information on Mullihambato and end up on a different battle. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not opposed to the redirect instead being Inca Civil War, I would note that the point of my vote is that this battle is considered the same as, if not interconnected with, Chillopampa. I'm not just voting to redirect to a random battle. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer at the 1986 International Cerebral Palsy Games[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found. Tournament has no article, match results are missing for many games, sources are databases, location is a small village. Fram (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Events, Organizations, Football, and Belgium. Fram (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The location notwithstanding, there is no demonstrable coverage of the event, failing GNG. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Location is important (as part of the rationale) as the village has only a very small football stadium[5], so it's not as if this was an event at some major location with potentially thousands of visitors and an increased chance of good coverage. If this tournament had been played at e.g. the King Baudouin Stadium, then it would seem more likely that there was national or international coverage we just haven't found yet. Fram (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress[edit]

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

No reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps User:JeyReydar97 could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Challenge (college baseball)[edit]

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

Baseball tournament scheduled for 2025 fails WP:GNG. All sources are press releases from the participating teams or sponsor organization. The only media coverage ([6], [7]) is churnalism regurgitating the press releases and cannot support notability per WP:NEWSORG. Until there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources, it's WP:TOOSOON for this article. As an AtD, I propose to draftify, since I expect there will be coverage next year closer to or after the event. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Baseball, and Puerto Rico. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Current coverage is limited to routine announcements. Frank Anchor 14:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)[edit]

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

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewired (demoparty)[edit]

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

Not a notable event; no secondary coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Belgium. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Bhatner fort (1398)[edit]

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

Yet another article with poor sources that fails verification, this article seems to rely heavily on WP:POVFORK & WP:SYNTH. The infobox mentions that Dul Chand fought for Delhi sultanate however the Siege section mentions him as a ruler/king of a different kingdom and it has no mention of Delhi sultanate. Moreover there are no cited sources mentioning the event as Sack of Bhatner fort (1398). Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 07:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this tidal wave of rubbish really is exhausting. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of Nirmohgarh (1702)[edit]

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

It literally does not has any sources cited in it. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Encyclopedia of Sikhism mentions a battle at Nirmohgarh, though apparently in 1700 rather than 1702. We don't appear to have an article on Nirmohgarh at all, though clearly it is a place that existed, of some significance. Also mentioned in this book, and here, apparently again at a somewhat earlier date. BD2412 T 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete the place may well have existed, there may have been a battle there, but this article does not seem to be about those, and is thus OR. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Slatersteven--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking proper sourcing to be verifiable, Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. A battle may have occurred at this location but sources don't back it being this one at this date. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed the sources in the version before all were removed and I could not verify them. The year and location of the battle is also questionable given from the search by editor BD2412. RangersRus (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Kashmir Wars[edit]

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

This article literally has no sources or content in it. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting the page, editors should work on it and improve it. It's an actual war provided with sufficient sources. Lightningblade23 (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The war is historically accurate. Citations and content can be added and the article can be improved but its deletion wouldn't be in good faith.EditorOnJob (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources excluding two by Mohibbul Hasan and Majumdar. The complete page is from source by Mohibbul Hasan from page 183 to 186 that has a mention of two wars fought in 1527 won by Kashmir Sultanates and the other in 1528 won by Mughals. Majumdar source is used for mention of Khanua battle that has nothing to do with Mughal-Kashmir wars. None of the other sources have any ascription. The page numbers on source templates for Hasan are wrong. The creator of the page should hold back from primary sources like Chādūrah, Ḥaydar Malik who was an administrator and soldier under Mughal emperor in 17th century, Baharistan-i-shahi, a Persian manuscript written by an anonymous author, presumably in early 17th century, Tarikh-i Firishta written by Muhammad Qasim Ferishta presumably between 16th and 17th century and also Babur-nama. Page is also WP:SYNTH when you read a content written "The Mughals faced the Chaks at Naushahra and, despite early success, were defeated and forced to retreat back to India." No phases of wars are supported by reliable sources. Draftify vote is if the creator can bring on reliable sources to support many phases of wars to consider the page an actual full fledged Mughal-Kashmir Sultanate wars. RangersRus (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another WP:SYNTH like few other recently deleted pages revolving around the same subjects. Azuredivay (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent contributions to the article since the deletion nomination says it has no sources and that is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RangersRus. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1978 West Virginia judicial elections[edit]

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

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and West Virginia. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if I have time to create an article on West Virginia judicial elections during this AfD. In the absence of such an article, I think that at least some of the material on the state supreme court election in 1980 West Virginia judicial elections be merged to Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections. I am satisfied that the state supreme court elections satisfy LISTN. There is also coverage of Judge Thomas E McHugh in newspapers, and coverage elsewhere such as [14]. James500 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curbon7: There are some other alternatives. We could move this to 1978 West Virginia elections and create empty headers tagged as needing expansion for other elected offices (there is also a 1978 United States Senate election in West Virginia); or, we could merge all three articles in this nomination into a 1970s–80s West Virginia judicial elections article, or just a West Virginia judicial elections article, with links out to articles covering years not in this article. BD2412 T 18:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I wouldn't oppose creation of West Virginia judicial elections and a merge to that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Merging Supreme Court elections may be appropriate, but not the trial court elections. Even for current elections like 2020 West Virginia elections, we only have the statewide elections, not the non-notable local-level ones. There are so many of those that are simply not covered. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That makes sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: The elections in circuit court is rarely ever notable outside the county/circuit that the court is in. And sometimes not even that. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion due to the proposed Merge. But I can't close this as a Merge to a nonexistent article so there has to be some reassurance that said article will be created during this discussion or another Merge target article selected by consensus. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close as Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Cosmo International 2024[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:EVENT Claggy (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Claggy (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Page could be recreated once the event has been held, however. TH1980 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be held. Just like in any other international pageant that is going to happen within the year, it's not too soon to create an article for this. Example of which is Miss Universe, which would be held in September/November (even if there's no clear date yet but there's an article for that. So, I'd disprove of that. I'd retain it.

Suggestions would only include a few more citations and reliable references from the media/news. Take these into consideration before even deleting this. Thank you. Japemizen627 (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No please don't delete the page. The event will be held soon in October

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Based on my check, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability, but I couldn’t find any. The sources I found were just passing mentions and cannot meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) * Delete. 3 sources on the page and none have significant coverage to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs substantial cleanup but as the second-largest political party by membership in the democratic world a meeting like this is likely to be notable, in a similar sense to 2024 Democratic National Convention. We even have an article for the tiny 2024 Libertarian National Convention. The US Libertarian Party has less than 1 million members, the Indian National Congress has 95 million. I've conducted a few quick searches and located quite a bit of coverage from national newspapers in India such as this from The Hindu and this from the Times of India. Google News searches produce a lot of results, too. It appears the conference was quite significant for the party based on the coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Times of India can’t establish notability at all as per WP:TOI GrabUp - Talk 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from a quick glance there is ample in-depth coverage in English media outlets. There is scope to expand the article, and outline the policy shifts that materialized in or through the event. It's worth noting that this is the national convention of a party that pulled 119 million votes in the last national election. --Soman (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - examples of in-depth coverage at India Today, NDTV, National Herald, The Wire, Business Standard, Business Standard, The Hindu, Hindustan Times. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Thanks for sharing these sources, Maybe my BEFORE was not great enought like you. I am convinced that the article meets WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I too changed vote but to Draftify as the page needs major work with all reliable sources given by Soman and AusLondonder. If we just vote for Keep, then no guarantee if anyone will improve the page. Creator of the page can take the feedback from here, improve the page and republish it. RangersRus (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Herald is a Congress Party linked Newspaper. Does it qualify for a neutral, Independent reference source? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. After looking at search work by AusLondonder and Soman, page has potential to pass WP:GNG with some cleanup and expansion with reliable sources. Voting for page to Draftify for creator and other interested editors to improve the page and then submit for review to be published. RangersRus (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Draftify is not intended as incubation for expansions. This article is a mini-stub, but a perfectly legitimate stub. There is no material in the current version of the article that warrants it to be draftified. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. --Soman (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pune car crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, no significant coverage outside India and trivial commentary by a few politicians, possibly because it happened during the 2024 Indian general election. Borgenland (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated in WP:N(E), "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) [...] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There's nothing about this event that indicates it has (or will have) enduring significance. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will have enduring significance, we are seeing members of the current ruling party lauchpadding this case for the movement of judicial reform. 27.63.231.66 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which coinciding with the general election, may as well be an electoral stunt that everyone will forget. Borgenland (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A significance in this case my friend is the fact of how it exposes the 2 different India. The minor in the case was let off in less than a day with nothing more than a month of social service and a puny essay to write on road accident on the account he is not an adult. The minor had been allowed inside 2 pubs and allowed to drive a porsche whichunder indian law can only be done once you are above 18. This makes this case have lasting value to the legal system. This is different from most crimes, accidents and is very notable due to the social media traction it gained. The only political or criminal connection comes as an MLA that is a member of indian parliament's son was in the car at the time and beat up by people at the venue of accident and the judicial system was exposed for its flaw in giving juvenile justice and the police did a bad job on this case. Killing of 2 IT proffesionals cannot be termed as a electoral stunt. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a routine automobile accident, you could replace "Pune" with almost any city around the globe and the story would be the same. NOTNEWS Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say so my dear friend for this accident has waters much deeper than most cases, it involves an MLA, a renowned builder and incompetency of a bribed police and hospital staff. The mom of the minor was reported to have swapped her blood making this veryyy different from an average automobile accident in las vegas etc. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accident isn't notable, the investigation and allegations around it could be notable; that would be a different article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment makes no sense yet let me explain, This accident involves a builder's son crashing into 2 IT proffesionals at 3:30 AM at a speed of 200 km/h. Accused was handed to police and was giiven bail in less than a day without any notable punishment making this a notable accident. This article should not be deleted. Publichelper1011 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Automobile accidents are very common, run of the mill incidents, sure, this incident may have gotten a tad bit more attention from politicians and the news, but at the end of the day, its frankly not really news. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This incident is different from your run of the mill accidents. This time it involves rich parents saving a brat from rightful justice as he was released in less than a day and was given a punishment of writing a "run of the mill" essay and was entitled to a few days of community service. An average murderer is remanded to 2 years of juvenile custody I must add dear dellow samoht. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has got significant coverage for now. It will take sometime to see if it meets WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And until then, relevant policies stipulate that the incident is not notable, and an article on it therefore cannot be sustained. If this is still in the news two years from now, I expect anyone still interested can recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Not the right time to decide notability of the subject that has already got enough coverage. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is incredibly MILL and probably didn't need the usual pointlessly rageful Republic/NDTV overcoverage which seems to be openly turning a simple vehicular death incident into exactly what they want. There won't be lasting coverage and it will likely end with private settlements and other justice currently happening now. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its may 30 today 1 week after the incident and News show that minor was released in 17 hours, Hospital staff was bribed of 3 lakhs, the minor's father and grandfather in police custody. thier uncle has ragebaited the public, minors mom has faked blood reports by swapping her own blood for her childs reminding us of drishyam 2 and its amazing climax. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still getting coverage.[15] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ reiterate a minimal casualty toll, non-notable victims (that the suspect was driving a Porsche is mere WP:TRIVIA) and no significant coverage outside India. Borgenland (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This above comment is posted by the same editor who also nominated this article for deletion.[16] Ratnahastin (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken for emphasis. That's right. You need to sign + timestamp all nominations, Borgenland, which already count as your preference to delete (!vote). El_C 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t notice that in the starter. Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all good. El_C 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS and above in general. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons others have mentioned, if this is something that will become notable then it's WP:TOOSOON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To say that an article should be deleted only because it concerns a recent incident is not sensible. Should wait for some weeks before doing AfD in these cases. Shankargb (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's recent so much as it's a completely run of the mill drunk driving crash that killed two people. It quite literally is not notable. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... which was stated in the OP. What isn't sensible is to base an opinion at AfD based on cherrypicking only one element of the nomination. Ravenswing 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run-of-the-mill car crash of which hundreds of the same scale occur every day. Just because something receives a small burst of news coverage does not mean it is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 week after the incident, multiple arrest have been done in the case. The investigation for the mother is on way, bribe of 3 lakhs has been noted, police have said this is not an everyday car crash. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill accident without the depth or extent of media coverage, such that it is not notable. The only thing setting it apart is the odd bail conditions, but that is insufficient to give it notability. Local Variable (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
local variabled is unable to see the news i assume PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable to me at all. These types of crashes occur every day. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sadustu tau must catch up to recent news. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being vague about this is not going to change my argument. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also my comment was made before more recent developments, which do seem to make it more notable than usual, however. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While vehicle accidents are not automatically notable, this one is a different case. 2024 elections are not really relevant for this incident. This car crash has gained significant worldwide coverage, [17] contrary to this AfD nomination. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful over its sustainable coverage though. At this rate it is a mere eccentric news from abroad. Borgenland (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's basically a car crash, which will not generate sustained coverage. If it does indeed generate long-term coverage, it can be recreated. OhHaiMark (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1)The case has garnered significant media coverage with each & every update of the case being telecasted and covered across the board. Multiple national politicians have already made comments on it during the ongoing 2024 Indian General Elections. Therefore the subject is already notable enough for an independent page. The incident is of national coverage and has already brought the discussion on the Judiciary and Police executives to the forefront. (2) Being a recent news, as per WP:RAPID it is better to keep the page for now since there is no deadline to delete the page. Moreover, if its not WP:SUSTAINED in future, it can always be deleted. (3) For WP:TOOSOON multiple developments have already taken place in the investigation with reactions from many notable people. Therefore it is not too soon and sufficient time has already passed. EditorOnJob (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the incident is clearly notable, and it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The incident is being covered all over India in reliable sources. Nominator's rationale "no significant coverage outside India is also inappropriate. Most of the murders, and missing persons cases (from all over the world) do not get international coverage, very few do. When the car crash took place, I thought the coverage was sensationalism, but later the decisions were cancelled, and now three generations are in custody source. The resulting coverage is now not sensationalism. According to this, (posted on 23, crash was on 19) it has grabbed national attention. The car crash has also reopened the investigation of a hit placed by Surndra Agarwal on a corporator through mafia/underworld don [18] Two doctors of state-run hospital were arrested source. These things do not happen with run of the mill car crashes. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. If there are significant changes in popular media, legislation etc. because of this event over the next few years then we can recreate the article. Also to the nom, that "no significant coverage outside India" is definitely uncalled for. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment calls for deleting every case even those of deaths of head of state if they had no change to popular media, please use common sense brother lentical. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a poor choice of analogy comparing a dead world leader with a local councilman bhai. You do need to make your arguments have more sense. Borgenland (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a multinational news story. It is not about a car crash, but instead about social issues such as wealth avoiding legal consequences, bribery, rich young people using alcohol, the rights of common people versus rich, and others. This is not a routine report of an automobile collision, nor is it local, and the story is very likely to have ongoing updates because of further developments including the bribery accusations and accusations of corruption of doctors, police, and the courts. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not least because of the enormous BLP violations contained within, including claims of criminality and intent that have not been fully adjudicated and the publication of minors' and non-notable victims' names. If the topic eventually does receive sustained attention, it can easily be refunded, but right now it is doing far more harm to victims' families in addition to contributing to sensationalist non-NPOV political reporting. JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is still viral on social media and spokesperson of multiple politcal parties, and news channel still report the incident and cover it about 10 days after the reported rage break in social media. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This incident rather exposed a number of doctors and other people involved due to the public pressure which isn't a normal occurrence if it hadn't been public pressure the incident would have been like any normal accident out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.89.170 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident has recieved notable media coverage along with multiple independent sources covering the topic over a prolonged period. The Indian General elections have ended, the media coverage should be observed over the next few days in order to access whether it was a politcally motivated topic or a notable topic of interest. Keep it for the time being and continue the discussion for the a few more days. Xoocit (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion ongoing here. I tagged the article as lacking NPOV but I'm also baffled by editors claiming this article is about " a routine automobile accident" as this article has been greatly expanded since its nomination. What matters is not whether or not editors believe a car crash is just news but whether reliable source establish this subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID It has got significant coverage till date. The question whether it is WP:LASTING will be only known in due course. The trial has to take place .Hence for now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is not a random car crash but a unique one. It is still getting enough coverage and this coverage is going to happen for a longer period of time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident has caused a stir in India like no other car crash has. Deeper themes of the exploitation of the poor by the rich with money (rich kid killed the poor, but almost got away with it by bribing with money) exist, and it also highlights the injustices that India’s current legal/police system allows. Coverage by many major Indian news providers still continues, alongside social media discussions by citizens.JayTea2910 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Austrian Open[edit]

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

$5000 tournament at bwf international level which doesn't meet the notability criteria WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:NBAD. The only notable ones which get enough coverage in notable websites are World Tour tournaments.

Moreover the tournament winners are already mentioned here in Austrian International page as each of those editions can't be created on their own due to notability issue.zoglophie^•talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Austria. zoglophie^•talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was unable to find non-primary sources. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – As WP:ATD. The event is ongoing and the article was recently created, if there are more sources they can be added accordingly. Svartner (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu[edit]

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

Lack of WP:LASTING - unfortunately a lot of violent crime happens in South Africa, not every attack is noteworthy. BrigadierG (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an attack on an ambassador is more notable than a random attack, but unless there was some lasting impact, I'd probably agree with Nom. 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete the diplomat may well be notable to have his own article, but not this event in particular I would say. Uhooep (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Emmanuel Mwambulukutu used to be an article on the diplomat before it was redirected to this newly-created page on the 2007 attack. It wasn't in great shape, but with most of the sources dead, I can't say much definitively on his personal notability other than it's probably borderline. The attack probably isn't notable enough on its own, but I didn't do any real research into it, so I'm not placing an actual !vote. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Mwambulukutu was a Member of Parliament from 1985-2000 then why was the article binned in the first place. That would make him notable. Even if the article was a mess it could still be improved. Uhooep (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored his bio. He is clearly a notable politician having been an MP in the Tanzanian Parliament. Perhaps any non-duplicated prose from this afd can be transcribed there where appropriate. Uhooep (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu, not enough content to stand on its own. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Smash Invitational[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is what looks to be WP:GNG on the tournament in media, although a lot of it from Bermudian related sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Island Festival[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable festival with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yields only a few passing mentions, but nothing that satisfies WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Singapore. GSS ^💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash[edit]

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

Accident doesn't demonstrate needed notability for an article. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Whilst the event does have coverage (minimal), the majority of them are in french with all of them being short stories. I haven't been able to find any coverage post-2005 involving this accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Yet again another Antonov accident that doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS, an accident with 11 fatalities is not an everyday occurance. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an event doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean it automatically gets a keep. No lasting effects were demonstrated from the accident. It has been 18 years since the accident and the accident has not demonstrated any (long-term) impacts. The event does not have significant nor reliable coverage.

Per WP:EVENTCRIT:

_{Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.} Event does not fulfill this criteria.
_{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).} No widespread impact or coverage in diverse sources with no analysis of the accident.
_{Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.} Event has limited coverage.
_{Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.} Nothing inherently notable about this accident even if tragic.

Post-2005, I haven't been able to find any coverage regarding this accident thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

an accident like this is indefinetly going to fail the 10-year test that many deletion authors go by, no accident has continued coverage over 19 years. Lolzer3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure no accident will have continued coverage for over 19 years but an accident should at least be mentioned/ talked about for at least a year especially for an accident with that many fatalities. All news sources are primary sources which means it is impossible to source reliable secondary sources. All news sources only state the circumstances of the accident without any analysis of the accident failing WP:INDEPTH.

The event fails the general notability guidelines as it has no significant coverage and no reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeable here, i can only find a singular source covering it 6 days later, linked below, there is an in depth summary in 2005 in aviation so the general deletion of the article itself wouldnt be a problem because the information is still pertained in the summary.

[19] (the mentioned link) Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability issue needs more attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lolzer3000: Are you in favour of the deletion? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of continued or widespread coverage that would assist in meeting EVENTCRIT. No evidence of meeting GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pattani bombing[edit]

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

The sources are all from the time of the event. Need lasting coverage and impact to meet WP:EVENT. A search for sources yielded sources for a different bombing in Pattani in 2016. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well sourced and the incident has continued to be discussed both for itself and as part of the overall security situation in Thailand. A short documentary was made about one of the suspects. I've added links from 2018 and 2020. Article needs some cleanup especially the "attack" narrative that lacks inline citations. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Timeline of events related to the South Thailand insurgency#2017, where it is mentioned. If what Oblivy says is true, then I'd vote keep, but I can't actually find what is mentioned above, or verify that it has long standing significance. The added links are bordering on run of the mill and don't seem to have much commentary. Or commentary on the documentary. If that is provided I would change my vote to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage can be found in the Al Jazeera, CNA, and International Business Times articles. I don't think run-of-the-mill applies to any of that.

The deletion rationale was about lasting coverage and impact. The event gets continuing discussion by security researchers like this[20]. It seems to have gotten extended discussion in Wheeler, Thailand's Southern Insurgency in 2017: Running in Place (2018, paywalled). The court case was reported as a standalone article in the Bangkok Post, a good indicator of lasting impact, as is the fact that a filmmaker decided to make a documentary about it. The article isn't about the documentary - it's cited to show that there was lasting coverage of the event via the documentary - and I don't think it's reasonable to require commentary on the documentary. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wishing to vote on this should probably have a look at the substantially revised article. I've added cites, and have been through most or all of the ones that are in the article. Lack of inline citations in some places has been dealt with. I have made my case for sustained coverage and impact and these changes strengthen that argument. Oblivy (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to further merger discussion on the talk page. There does seem to be just enough coverage to support a stand-alone article, though whether the content (which isn't very extensive) would be better served within the broader context of the conflict would be an editorial consideration. The timeline article is already quite long and brief as it is, so a lot of restructuring would be needed before it can become a suitable merge target. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet[edit]

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

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, China, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet has no issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War as you said.
This article is Notable and has been given significant coverage by reliable sources.

Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.^[1]
Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them^[2]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial ^[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.

Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.

Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)~~Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

[1] Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.

[2] Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.

[1]

[2]