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]

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]

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 ([1], [2]) 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. 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]
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]

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]

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

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. I was considering nominating this for deletion myself yesterday. No evidence of sustained coverage with the article heavily reliant on primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the above per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. No sustained coverage which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and WP:NOTNEWS. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait - There are still explicit references to the self-immolation being made as it occurred during the trail kickoff. Wait until after the trial to see if it meets WP:NOTNEWS.GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"New Episode Of The Josh Marshall Podcast: Cricket's Revenge". TPM – Talking Points Memo. May 9, 2024.

Merge to List of political self-immolations, per my comment in the previous AFD. Like I said there: "Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE." I still don't see much lasting coverage; it's being mentioned in passing, but almost all sources are from a month ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A merge is unnecessary as the incident is already listed at List of political self-immolations and I can't see what specifically needs to be merged. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil genocide[edit]

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Sri Lanka, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Article created by a rabid sock puppets abuser after admittedly copying content from War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War.[9]

Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide". The creation of this WP:POVFORK is a clear-cut misuse of Wikipedia as per WP:SOAP and WP:RGW.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article which passes WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article may lack thorough sourcing, but discussions on recognising the Tamil genocide are taking place globally. For instance, the Canadian government, the Tamil Nadu government, the provincial government of Northern Province in Sri Lanka, and the Minister of Home Affairs of India have recognized the genocide. The preliminary work on the "Tamil genocide" page shall be enhanced to provide comprehensive and necessary information to Wikipedia readers. ALKBH5 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. The page is currently fully protected (until 3 June) and only uncontroversial edits are allowed, which a deletion nominatin certainly is not. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to put notice on the main page was already requested. Some admin will eventually put it. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, deletion is not a non-controversial edit. Secondly, and more importantly, deletion discussion in principle aims at identifying problems with the given article, and editors usually work to fix them as the discussion develops. Unless it's a case of WP:TNT, editors are unable to address problems when full protection is in place. (Granted, it wasn't possible to work on this particular article anyway because of WP:TAGTEAM). — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: The AfD nomination was already added to the main article hours ago.[10] You should strike your !vote now. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fully protected until 21:01 on 30 May 2024 UTC, not 3 June. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The claim about copied content by a sock puppet is no longer valid as the article has since been significantly edited and altered by other users and enough reliable sources have been provided to justify its existence. So the claim that "nobody" recognizes Tamil genocide is clearly false and not a conclusion that can be reached by a person who has fully read the entire article or crosschecked the cited sources in the lede itself. It's a work in progress and more improvements can be made, which was what I was trying to do before users started revert warring and got the page protected. May I also remind the admins that there have been two proposals in the past for its merger and rename, both of which were opposed by most users. Furthermore, there is a place in Wikipedia for "genocides" that do not have universal nor official UN recognition, such as Bangladesh genocide, Black genocide in the United States, Guatemalan genocide and East Timor genocide. In any case, complete deletion cannot be justified.---Petextrodon (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear admins: In every May marking Tamil genocide remembrance, there's a spike in interest in this topic mostly from Sri Lankans, both Sinhalese and Tamils. So I'm not surprised by their participation. What's intriguing is the large number of North Indian users with no prior editing in Sri Lankan topic (but with a history of canvassing each other in Indian topic) are all suddenly taking the same stance, including the user who nominated. Not one dissent which even a Sinhalese user has shown. Even their wording is similar in that they are all absolutely sure no genocide took place and that no one recognizes it. Admins need to look into potential off-Wiki coordination.---Petextrodon (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we go through the contribution history of this article, it seems to me that these users User:Oz346, User:Petextrodon, User:Okiloma, User:Beastmastah, User:Omegapapaya, User:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards are working as a group to keep their point of view in the article. I have come across these same editors in other Sri lanka civil war related Wikipedia articles as well. Also, what I have noticed is that whenever there is a discussion going on related to a Sri lankan civil war topic, they collectively come and cast the vote that favors them so that the majority is always favored. It should be also noted that three of the users I have mentioned here User:Okiloma, User:Beastmastah, User:Omegapapaya have been blocked from editing for reasons such as using multiple accounts. If we look at the profiles who voted in oppose to this rename, they seem not to be neutral editors if we go through their contribution history.Futhermore, Tamil genocide has not been recognized by the UN or any other famous Human Rights Organizations such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty. There is a need for independent neutral Wikipedia contributors to look into this issue and provide a solution. I believe this article should be deleted or at least renamed to "Tamil Genocide Allegation". I hope my observations will be useful for Admins when coming up with a decision. JohnWiki159 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a baseless personal attack. Just because many editors have common interests in pages, does not mean they are all working together. In fact, if you look at the edit history on this article, User:Beastmastah used his sock to make edits [11] which I had publicly opposed on his talk page: User talk:Omegapapaya. Also in previous votes, many uninvolved editors also voted for similar conclusions (you are not an uninvolved editor but have a pro-Sri Lanka edit history and coincidentally became active just today after a hiatus). So you should back up your claims with hard evidence. And regarding UN recognition, there was a clear conflict of interest at the UN and it was not politically neutral in its response. Oz346 (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal attack. These are my observations and I have presented them here for others to consider. Also regarding the UN recognition, they haven't recognized this. What are you trying to tell by pointing that there was a "conflict of interest at the UN" ? So are you using this point to assume that the UN recognized this "Genocide"? This similar approach has been used throughout this article. What has been done in this article is combine material from multiple sources to reach this "Genocide" conclusion. Even most of these sources don't mention about Genocide. This is WP:SYNTH. Also, the UN and other human rights organization such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have reported war crimes committed by both sides. They haven't mentioned anything about "Genocide". The article War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War is already there which talks about the war crimes committed by both parties. If we take a look at this "Tamil Genocide" article, it is so much biased. The UN panel report says LTTE used civilians as a human buffer, killed civilians who attempted to flee the LTTE, fired artillery from among civilians before quickly moving away leaving the civilians on the receiving end of the return fire, forced recruitment of the children to fight for the LTTE ^[1]. Aren't these also a "genocide"? Why is only one party being mentioned in this article? Also look at the use of the words. In the article, it says "Sinhala army" instead of Sri lankan army in some places. Unbelievable. Also regarding the "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal" decision, the International Crisis Group says "The credibility of the quasi-judicial process was undermined by the absence of any attention to violations committed by the LTTE and the lack of input from representatives or advocates of the Sri Lankan government and military" in this report [12]. JohnWiki159 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a slanderous personal attack when you claim I'm working with these sock puppet abusers "as a group", especially when I have publicly opposed their unreliably sourced content. It's an attempt to smear.

The UN system is not completely neutral as their own internal investigations have proven. Some UN officials were complicit in the massacres by downplaying and hiding them. To say that there was no genocide just because the UN has not said it yet is ludicrous. In order for the UN to recognise it would require legal proceedings to take place, which no UN member state is willing to initiate (as most are allied towards the Sri Lankan state not Tamils). So the UN as a whole is not a neutral arbiter.

This is broadly an article on the genocide of Tamils by Sinhalese nationalists, hence the focus on genocidal acts by the Sinhalese dominated government. There are no reliable sources claiming that the LTTE committed genocide against Tamils. So no, their actions against Tamils are not "also a genocide".

If you have a problem with words like Sinhala army those can easily be changed to Sri Lankan army, it's not a major problem. Finally, the International Crisis Group is a biased western government orientated research group and are not neutral either. One of their former heads for example was involved in downplaying the East Timor genocide: http://www.etan.org/et2007/august/11/08gareth.htm. ICG's argument that a genocide tribunal against the Sri Lankan government was undermined by lack of focus on LTTE crimes does not disprove genocide. If someone commits genocide, the separate criminal actions of another person does not absolve them of genocide. The Sri Lankan goverment were invited to defend themselves at the tribunal, but they refused, so the tribunal cannot be blamed for that. Oz346 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You raised the question, "Aren't these also a genocide?" The term genocide is defined as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." This definition includes a physical element, which consists of the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:

Killing members of the group

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I am afraid that the acts you claim to have been committed by the LTTE do not meet the criteria of genocide. The actions attributed to the LTTE, while grave and serious if they are true; however, do not appear to fit the specific legal and definitional criteria necessary to constitute genocide as outlined above. ALKBH5 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These pages are in watchlist hence editing them ,I have been editing Sri Lankan articles since 2006. The article does have WP:SIGCOV coverage and article with significant coverage cannot be deleted. 58 Editors have edited this page making 726 edits and that is substantial editing by others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move:The page was created by a sock who also actively and openly canvassed at least on reddit and is affected by heavy sock and meatpuppetry. The charge of Genocide remains allegations and accusations, with no UN investigation establishing Dolus Specialis. Many of the sources used in the article are WP:SYNTH and references acts that are not Genocide and sources themselves make no mention of Genocide. There is also the issue of WP:TAGTEAM that needs to be addressed as well. -UtoD 07:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several reliable scholarly sources discussing the topic of 'Tamil genocide', so it is notable enough for its own article. Several peer-reviewed sources are indexed by Google Scholar on this topic. The article has already gone through a discussion to merge, and a discussion to rename, and now a discussion to delete (see its talk page). There are several people who do not like the details in this article being seen on wikipedia. But that is not a valid reason to remove.Oz346 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep firstly it is a procedural close as the article is protected.There are scholarly sources about Tamil Genocide and particurly the Tamil massacre's in 2009 is called Genocide.Further G5 is not applicable as there has been that have been substantial edits by others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the 2009 Tamil massacre has its own dedicated article. There's no term "genocide" there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5? It's not a speedy deletion! — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnWiki159 and also WP:SOAP. Wikipedia cannot be used for pushing an agenda. CharlesWain (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This The Peoples’ Tribunal Sri Lanka made a comprehensive ruling that qualified the events in Sri Lanka as genocide against the Tamil populace commit by the Sri Lankan government in accordance with international law. All major parties in Canada have recognized that a genocide took place on the island.@ HereforOnce777 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable scholarly sources discuss Tamil Genocide. It passes WP:GNG. Articles well sourced cannot be deleted. Socking is not relevant as there have been substantial edits by others. 27.4.1.83 (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JohnWiki159. I came here from ANI report. This article is clearly making fun of the word "genocide" since no such genocide against the Tamils actually took place. Orientls (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions do not matter. We don’t make up articles from thin air, either it has reliable sources backing up or not. If you ask a Turk, Armenian genocide didn’t happen. Well that is not good enough reason, just because you felt it didn’t happen. Prove it Kanatonian (talk) Kanatonian (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move there’s been enough use of the term that it can be acknowledged through an article; however, I’m not convinced that it has enough of a mass recognition as genocide in the academic or legal worlds for Wikipedia to deem it as such, and those who don’t want it called “allegation” seem to universally misunderstand what we mean when we say “allegation.” We’re not saying that the occurrence of the incidents themselves are “allegations” necessarily but the claim that they amount to genocide is, genocide being a specific legal term for which Wikipedia has certain standards to use. SinhalaLion (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe deleting it and adding the sepcific allegatiosn of Genocide back to the War Crimes page. Large sections of the article have nothing to do with the Genocide allegation and is more about seperate accusations like displacement, settler colonialism etc and many sources don't even mention Genocide as an allegation. Article is excessively bloated by WP:SYNTH. -UtoD 12:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the article is very poorly sourced and draws a lot of its content from existing that seem to use the same sources. Advocates of this page [13] claim that there are many academic sources, however they have not assisted in the efforts undertaken to improve the quality [14]. Furthermore, from what I see there seems to be an underlying agenda at play here. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really bad bias and POV. Littered with AI-generated text everywhere, such as "This act of reconstruction not only restored the physical monument but also served as a reaffirmation of the community's commitment to remembering the past and seeking justice. The rebuilding of the statue in Jaffna stands as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Tamil people and their continued struggle for recognition and reconciliation." Needs to be completely overhauled; blow it up and start all over again, WP:TNT. Florificapis (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable passages like that can easily be removed or rectified without having to nuke the whole page. Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a bad faith nomination, littered with procedural errors and personal attacks. A badly written article is no reason for deletion. A contested subject matter is not a reason for deletion. If enough reliable sources said that a genocide happened in Sri Lanka, then as an encyclopedia content creating community we can create an article. If the article is not written from neutral perspective or it is not balanced or uses peacock words we have enough notifications to improve the article. This is total hogwash, speedy close. Kanatonian (talk)
Draft-ify the current article is an embarrassment (partially because, per tradition, the The Wrong Version was protected; Special:Permalink/1225326372 is merely bad). It is argumentative, and has no clear topic-boundaries. Other articles, such as War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War, cover (most of) the topic area better. The one exception is about historiography in particular; the post-war discussions of whether the specific word "genocide" should be used are a coherent topic that isn't discussed elsewhere. This needs to be completely re-worked, and doing so in draft-space will hopefully lower the temperature. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Tamil genocide ever happened. War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War already exists. We should not trivialize the word "genocide". Lorstaking (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it's some times confusing in most of the world's warring fronts whether it's War Crime or Genocide happend, but there are enough books discuss on Genocide.Lustead (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No genocide against the Tamils ever happened contrary to this POVFORK. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 16:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal opinion with absolutely zero back up as to why HereforOnce777 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lorstaking. Created by a sock, the article is sending a misleading message. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are reliable sources that discuss the possibility that genocide occurred in Sri Lanka so there is no issue with Wikipedia having an article on the subject. The nominator and others claim that the article is a WP:POVFORK but they haven't said from where - is there an article that says the genocide didn't happen? Others have stated that allegations of genocide can be included in the war crimes article but that article already exceeds size guidelines so it makes senses to have genocide in a separate article. Agree that this is a bad faith nomination by an Indian editor who has had no previous interaction with this article or any other Sri Lankan article. Same with his Indian friends CharlesWain, Orientls, Lorstaking, Pravega and Raymond3023. The only argument these meatpuppets can make for deleting the article is that it didn't happen. However, I do agree with the positive criticism by independent editors that the article is in a very poor shape. It lacks focus. I am open to suggestion of moving to draft space. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, various academic articles and books identifying it as a genocide, and plenty of documentation regarding various crimes against humanity that would constitute the definition of genocide. If the problem is that the article is poorly-written, then improve it to better reflect Wikipedia's standards without denying proven facts. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Canada has a Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, and the article in dispute itself is linking to various pogroms against the Tamil committed in Sri Lanka. A genocide does not have to be successful or accepted by the perpetrators as such to receive the label; attempted genocide is still a genocide.

Konanen (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Darusman, Marzuki; Sooka, Yasmin; Ratner, Steven R. (31 March 2011). Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (PDF). United Nations.

Keep Cited sources like Rome-based Permanent Peoples' Tribunal found Tamil genocide happened. Let's respect the views of experts and ignore the personal opinions of nationalist users unqualified to make that judgement. Laxshen (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: several accounts !voting "keep" have either never been active in this topic or have not at all been active in recent months or years. There's a real possibility of off-wiki co-ordination. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator also an Indian editor, you too an Indian Editor; within an hour of this AfD nomination, you have come out with your comment. You should explain how it is possible. Lustead (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this topic Japanese or Indian? You are targeting people by imagining their nationalities as "Indian" despite the topic being also Indian. You edited after more than 1 year and 4 months only to vote on this AfD for saving this ridiculous article. That's why others believe that you have been canvassed. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has nothing to do with India. Did you even bother to read it before nominating it for deletion? Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not Japanese or Indian, but Sri Lanka specific but why majority of the "Delete" votes are coming from Editors who have contributed India specific topics. I am involved since 2007 Sri Lanka War related topics, someone can't influence me, vote "Keep" .... but as I mentioned in the Keep vote above there are enough books discuss on Tamil Genocide and it's not ridiculous. A war which happened in the final phase by sending out the UN agencies in the war zone leaves room for War Crime and Genocide.Lustead (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is about Tamils who are mostly found in India. Even if you are going to deny that, then still, there is whole Tamil genocide#India on this article and content related to India has been mentioned a number of times outside that section as well. Your claim that this subject is unrelated to India is entirely false. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation relating with Tamils in India and other issues doesn't give enough justification why majority of the editors involved India related topics are here. You just nominated without any iota, others are just here to support you, that's all.Lustead (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misleading sock creation. After reading the whole article, one can conclude that nobody recognises this non-existing "genocide". There is already List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and more. Calling it a "possibility" or "attempted genocide" is not enough for letting you get around the misleading claim of a "genocide". Azuredivay (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are another editor involved editing India related topics.Lustead (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A cursory examination of Google Scholar demonstrates a preponderance of reliable academic sources discussing it. These include [15] very recent work] on the topic of Necropolitics as it intersects with genocide, book chapters, and academic interviews. Considering the extensive and varied nature of the high quality sources on the topic I'm somewhat perplexed that anyone would claim this did not meet the WP:GNG threshold. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 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)[reply]
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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
Keep Still getting coverage.[16] 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.[17] 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]
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]
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]
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, [18] 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 [19] 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]

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]

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]

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]

Battle of Rohilkhand[edit]

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

The article fails WP:N and WP: SIGCOV, no mention of "Battle of Rohilkhand" in the sources which are cited poorly through keyword searching and contains original research. I have checked the sources and nowhere I found a thing related to this event, clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax or at best nonsensical SYNTH. the creator has produced a run of dodgy Indian military history articles. Mccapra (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources provides zero results on Internet Archive for "Battle of Rohilkhand" or "Battle of Katehar". The only battle of Rohilkhand I am aware of is the 1794 one in the Second Rohilla War. Sources used in the article don't appear to actually discuss the topic. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:47, 25 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]

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Colombia Mil Mi-17 crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of news sources are primary. There is a failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE with coverage ending three weeks ago and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Events, and Colombia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a crash with 9 fatalities is not an everyday occurence, it succeeds WP:NOTNEWS due to the number of fatalities and is the second most fatal helicopter crash this year second to the Lumut Mid-air collision this year, it is the single most fatal crash this year also. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is not an everyday occurence doesn't mean it has to be included. If we were to do this, we would have hundreds of articles on accidents that are likely not notable enough to be included in wikipedia other than the number of deaths.

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. All news coverage ended three weeks ago. Even searching the term brings up different helicopter accidents not related to this event.

All news sources whether cited or not are all primary sources without much analysis of the event and are all short in length. The event doesn't have much significant coverage with no secondary sources.

If a helicopter with three people on board crashed and it were the second deadliest (or first) helicopter accident of the year, would an article on that accident need to be created? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS this should be deleted. Frankly 2024 Lumut mid-air collision probably should be deleted as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 Lumut mid-air collision had significant coverage as i've listed below :

[20]

[21]

[22]

3 Mainstream sources from seperate parts around the world covered it, however thats for a different discussion, here we have :

[23]

[24]

only 2 here but still enough to cover this and pass Notability guidelines here combined with the sources cited in the article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is just a bing search that brings up absolutely nothing related to this accident. The only news shown are from the 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash.

The second source given is a primary source that adds nothing new to the accident. As stated before, the article must have clearly sustained continued coverage which the event fails. As tragic as the accident was, the event clearly does not have significant coverage and lacks secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the first one, was in a rush to pack up for class didnt see i linked a random bing search this is what i was trying to link : [25] my apoligies! Lolzer3000 (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine :)

The source you linked, published ~1 day after the accident contains pretty much the same content as other sources without adding anything new to the accident. Whilst it is a reliable source, the article is pretty small and is quite short when compared to other recent aviation accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, seems unlikely to have WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable military crash. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 27 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.

Michaud Affair[edit]

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

This has been problematically tagged for over a decade. Seems almost entirely based on self-published primary sources. Has POV issues, and no clear evidence that this is a notable event beyond a news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or place to post personal interpretations. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, Politics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yves Michaud (politician) (where this is already addressed in a more succinct way). This is notable enough to be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but it isn't of enough enduring significance to have its own standalone article as a separate topic from the MNA who was implicated in it. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as suggested seems fine, this "affair" isn't really notable outside of the individual's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wars of the Deccan Sultanates[edit]

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

Yet another article appears to cover a series of conflicts spanning over a century, which have been amalgamated into many 'wars.' The only source Jaques Tony cited for this title and its prolonged duration does not support the timeline mentioned in the lead and infobox (note that timeline in lead and infobox aren't aligned). This discrepancy creates confusion and suggests a lack of notability. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK, which is concerning. I hope we don't get to see another non notable 'wars' article spanning centuries or even millennia. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Karnataka, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. The article adheres to Wikipedia's standards for reliability and notability. The nominator mentioned WP:SYNTH, so they should identify all the self-published sources and unreliable citations in the article that they believe should be removed.Please all those sources here so that we can talk on that easily.

Additionally, the nominator has raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the names and timelines of the wars mentioned in the article.I have already provided a citation for the nomenclature used in the article's headings.Since the article is heavily reliant on multiple sources, it should include references for the commencement and conclusion of the war, forming the timeline of the conflict.Here I have already cited the sources for the timeline too.I can cite the source with quotation to get easily identify the timeline.

Suggestion:-Nominator as well as the reviewers must thoroughly check all the sources.If there is any problem regarding any reference or source or any paragraph requires more Citation,you may assist by adding tags of ^{[citation needed]} for further editing.

~~Please refer the source "History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty" authored by H.K. Sherwani.-This source have mentioned the~~ Kemilliogolgi (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies and no you haven't cited any source for this fictional timeline of nearly 200 years simply because there's no source defining such a prolonged timeline. Jaques Tony's source is not enough. You have clearly mixed up every war and conflict between Vijaynagar empire and Deccan sultanates without providing enough sources for its notability and timeline. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which Wikipedia policies the article is not adhering to. If there are concerns about the timeline, I can provide specific sources with quotations to demonstrate that the article is accurately written, including the correct timeline for the wars. All sources used in the article are non-fiction.

~~Here i am giving a few sources :~~

(A)Article mentioned about a war-Cited by

1)Wars of the Deccan Sultanates:[26]pg.XXXIV

2)The end of the Vijayanagar Empire did not, however, mean an end to the wars, for Bijapur and Golconda now began to dispute the division of the spoils.

(B)Doubts regarding the timeline-

1)Tony Jaques mentioned the last battle as battle of talikota 1565,[27]

2)But the war lasted even after 1565- Untill 1673-final conquest[28]pg.33
The final conquest:

In 1672, Abul Hasan Qutb Shah, the last of the Golconda Sultans, ascended the throne. The following year saw the resumption of hostilities between Madurai and Thanjavur. Thanjavur was invaded once again in 1673, and was finally defeated, and the Nayak, Vijayaraghava, was killed[29]pg.33

Note:Vassals are also included in war [30]pg.XV

I hope the nominator will recheck the all sources and will mention all the self published sources cited in the article.As he had referred to WP:SYNTH to give an excuse for the deletion of the article.

If any further doubts-feel free to ask.

~~Regards!!!~~ Kemilliogolgi (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one source would be enough for the title. No other source other than Jaques Tony calls it "Wars of the Deccan sultanates", that too gives only the timeline of 1520-1565. I still don't get how come you create an article of nearly 200 years war article. And then you cited this source which contradicts other sources and nowhere this source supports your preferred timeline of 1495-1673. You're just cherry picking info from different sources which is what we call WP:SYNTH. Moreover you're quoting a different conflict from the same source which is not even related to the Vijaynagar empire. It's just a synth mess. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article contains many misinformation and not neutral at all. Recently I removed misleading info which is not even in the source.Theophilusbisio (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theophilusbisio I have reverted your edits to the last version of Kemilliogolgi. Please don't remove any content while the deletion discussion is ongoing. Regards. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 11:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here about our policies and guidelines.

It doesn't matter if the article is inaccurate or not neutral. Or a complete mess. That is because deletion is not cleanup. If an article can be improved through normal editing, simply fix it.
The nominator and the reviewers at Articles for deletion do not have to check the sources. If you want that, put the article up for Peer Review.
"Cherry picking info from different sources" is not what we call WP:SYNTH. Synth is when you combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
If an article is WP:POVFORK, then the nominator should specify what article it is forked from.

Given that the deletion criteria are unsupported, the article is going to be kept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:25, 25 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!} 06:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Created and substantially edited by sockpuppets [31][32] Ratnahastin (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sambalpur[edit]

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

One more article which lacks significant coverage and the sources don't go beyond mentioning some scattered lines that "Visaladeva, the tenth descendant of this line, was killed by a Muslim ruler of Delhi." There's no Battle of Sambalpur ever occurred per source. It's clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 19 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!} 06:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Chittorgarh (1544)[edit]

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

The article lacks general notability, as there are no cited sources specifically mentioning the Siege of Chittorgarh (1544) or providing significant coverage of this conflict. Instead, it focuses more on unrelated events such as the other conquests of Sher Shah and the Battle of Harmoda (1557). While some sources briefly mention Sher Shah's attention towards Mewar in 1544, there is no substantial coverage of a proper siege of Chittorgarh in these sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, India, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello!~~

Here are a few sources mentioning the SIEGE OF CHITTOR 1544 A.D.

As the nominator mentioned:The sources regarding the title/heading of article will be:-

Quotation:-1544 A.D. by offering his nominal submission to Shershah the Maharana averted a siege of Chittor.[33]pg.169

I hope nominator have examined the article thoroughly and than questioned about its context?

I have attached around 14 sources for the article completely dealing with the context of the article completely

For further assistance I am attaching a few more sources so that nominator can easily get the context.

[34] Pg.181 [35] Pg.A53 [36] Pg-529 [37] Pg.76 [38] This article neither contains any unreliable source nor dealing with any unrelated topics.Battle of Harmoda,As mentioned above is completely related to the topic.The commander Haji khan and Shams khan were left by Sher shah to face the Udai singh that must be mentioned and the aftermath should also being mentioned. Kemilliogolgi (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only cited this source [39] after the AfD nomination which has again no significant coverage. How can you create an article which has only 2-3 lines of mentions? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 08:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited after the afd nomination clearly identifies the article by its given name, showing that it is not based on original research. Additionally, there are 14 more sources provided in the article that offer a comprehensive description of the topic. These sources thoroughly support each paragraph within the article, indicating that it is not lacking in citations or referencing. It is recommended that a thorough review of all the sources in the article be conducted before determining whether it should be nominated for deletion. It is important to ensure that all sources are properly cited and referenced before reaching a final decision. (tags: citation needed, unreliable sources)

Note:-Before making a decision on whether to nominate the article for deletion, it is imperative that the nominator conducts a thorough review of all the sources to ensure they are accurately cited. It is also recommended to address any citation deficiencies on the article's talk page before proceeding with any deletion nominations. Only after confirming that the sources are properly cited and referenced should a decision be made regarding the article's deletion. (tags: citation needed, unreliable sources) Kemilliogolgi (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an AI generated reply. Anyways, the event is not significantly covered in the sources. This can be seen in The siege section, which starts with: When Sher Shah Suri was within a mere distance of 12 Kos from Chittor, Udai Singh II made the decision to surrender the fort without engaging in a direct confrontation. This is not what we call WP:SIGCOV. There's no significant engagement, so we can't carve out an article which only has 2-3 lines of non-engagement "Siege of Chittor". And I have checked and thoroughly reviewed the sources, out of 14 only 3 deals with this meagre siege and the rest focuses on other unrelated events. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two dramatically different interpretations of this article, we need more participants here to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: please note the struck sockpuppet comments above. This is probably a soft delete for lack of good-faith participation, but another 7 days won't hurt. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete article created and substantially edited by a sockpuppet uncovered here Ratnahastin (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several other editors have made significant contributions to the article, including yourself. It is not eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, i've struck my !vote Ratnahastin (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 zebra escape[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero impact on anything, probable WP:SUSTAINED / WP:LASTING failure. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

PersusjCP (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quintessential WP:NOTNEWS of a local event with no actual significance. Escapes of exotic animals are not particularly rare, even if their unusualness attracts some public attention. Reywas92^Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previously raised points by above editors. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Keep: Changing my vote. Randy Kryn and Another Believer convinced me below. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG with coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, and the Seattle coverage which covers a large regional area (not just local), but is it noteworthy? In the United States, yes, as a rarity. Maybe change the title to the name of the zebra who was on the loose for almost a week, Shug (zebra), which is what makes the topic notable (if all the zebras were quickly captured it wouldn't be, but the zebra wandering around for a week captured news coverage as well as the public's interest). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zebras wandering around is funny and great for meme material, until it's time to move onto the next meme. I don't think that justifies having an article for it, especially because it wasn't widespread coverage. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't get much more widespread than BBC + The Guardian + Smithsonian, AP, CNN, etc etc ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the coverage was widespread, so GNG is not a problem. In looking at other zebra articles this one stands out as being about individual zebras (Shug, the main focus of media coverage). Since Wikipedia coverage about individual zebras is low, then this article should be welcomed and lionized (lionized? run!). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, y'all changed my mind! Gottagotospace (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: page creator), per GNG. Received international coverage, plenty of sources on the talk page to expand the page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Might well have been thrilling and got a lot of short-term news coverage (click bait), but it doesn't rate encyclopedia coverage. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:52, 24 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!} 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the few lines about the impact on the town and the "zebra specials" to the article on North Bend, Washington, otherwise this is a non-notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 South African Touring Car Championship[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Article is completely unsourced and barely has any content. Also, context is insufficient and leaves a lot to be desired. Editor has created several of these articles, which have only been tagged as "unsourced". I suggest returning to draftspace so it can be improved there. No objection to deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and Motorsport. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Article needs work (a lot of it) before it is ready for the mainspace, however the information included can be verified in a number of secondary sources, even if refs aren't currently included. And while I acknowledge its prematurely been moved to the mainspace, based on the date stamps this AfD was initiated within a few hours of the article's creation. There is a reasonable potential that it can be improved. For those reasons I'm unwilling to !vote delete at this stage. Dfadden (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:19, 25 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.

[40] (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]

Serbian Rugby League Cup[edit]

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

Unreferenced, fails notabilty Mn1548 (talk) 13:05, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alternative merge and redirect to Serbian Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My preference however is to delete, given the state of the article, and lack of information on the competition format, and lack of context of how it fits into the Serbian season. Mn1548 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and Serbia. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sources available in English, European Rugby League has match reports for the finals from 2014 to 2017 and 2021, also a preview of the 2021 final which gives a bit of background history. These could be enough to establish notability. The Serbian RL website (in Serbian) also has lists of winners and of finals, but some data is missing, and there is nothing about an international cup. Due to the lack of match details, such as team lists and scorers, the article could be reformatted as a simple wikitable based on what can be verified. EdwardUK (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, that page looks alot nicer. 😊 Mn1548 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New opinion Thanks to EdwardUK I think there are sufficient sources to keep the article. Mn1548 (talk) 14:58, 17 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!} 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect – Per @Mn1548. Svartner (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all content has citations and there appear to be enough sources to indicate notability. EdwardUK (talk) 05:00, 27 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 delete‎. Per WP:TOOSOON. Any editor who wishes to restore this article in Draft space may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024[edit]

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

Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "ICC confirm Ireland's fixture list for next four years". Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Zimbabwe, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, at best, draftify). No indication how this single/planned/"friendly" cricket match meets WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. If, after the event occurs, it is clear that WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV are met, then the article could be recreated. As it stands, this seems to be a classic example of why we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am frankly baffled by the two "keep" recommendations below. Both from seasoned editors. But both of a type expressly discussed in WP:ATA. ("All test series have articles - and so this one should too" is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Nothing is inherently or automatically notable. Not least sports fixtures that haven't yet occurred. And "There may not be coverage now - but there definitely will be" is a WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED argument. Where the community agrees that "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already". Not whether they could in the future....) Baffled..... Guliolopez (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by the noms statement: "It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV"; this perhaps illustrates they are not familiar with Test cricket, or the importance of the match, as it will certainly generate significant coverage. AA (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nominator could have framed their own argument better (and perhaps said "it is very possible [SIGCOV won't be generated]"; Rather than the more definitive/predictive "it is very likely/unlikely [SIGCOV won't be generated]"). But the fact remains that AfD discussions should be based on the sources and evidences of notability that exist at the time of the discussion. Not those that might exist in the future. Or would have existed in the past had conditions been different. Personally I don't understand why, even if you fully believe that sources/evidences will arise in the future, you wouldn't see that as an argument to draftify/incubate. Until that actual SIGCOV actually exists... (Also, familiarity with test cricket [or expertise in any field] isn't a precondition to AfD discussions or a prerequisite to dispassionate evaluation of sources.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A series between two ICC full members who will play a Test match, the highest level of the international game. This match will receive coverage and WP:SIGCOV as it is the first Test match to be played in Northern Ireland (a historically notable moment) and only the second Test match played on the island of Ireland. AA (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every Test cricket series, even a one-Test series like this, has an article. Sammyrice (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It's likely that coverage will exist at the time of the test, but for now draftify as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 14 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!} 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG, the event is not notable for a dedicated article. Svartner (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Agree with AA that it is likely this will receive sufficient coverage to meet SIGCOV. But that is in the future. For now it doesn't, and draft space is specifically for incubating such articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the series becomes notable after it occurs, the article can be recreated. Right now there is nothing useful to retain in draft form. JoelleJay (talk) 05:48, 25 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.

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[41]. 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]

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election[edit]

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

Slightly more extensive than 2012 Scottsdale mayoral election. Still probably falls under WP:MILL. Okmrman (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Okmrman (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable.

-Samoht27 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a particularly notable election (no non-local coverage, so WP:MILL), and only sourced to election results - fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 19 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!} 04:53, 19 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!} 04:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It stands alone as the only Scottsdale mayoral election listed in Wikipedia. You should also delete the categories only associated with it and not other elections - Category:Mayoral elections in Scottsdale, Arizona and Category:Government of Scottsdale, Arizona — Maile (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the cited sources are WP:RAJ & outdated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS). Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One reliable source from historian Sandhu with three page on the battle that helps with verification of the content.. All other are poor to self published to unreliable WP:RAJ sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 17 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!} 02:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: All the sources from the page were removed by an editor while the AFD nom was in progress. It is an attempt to sabotage other's decision for voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RangersRus (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General Hari Singh Nalwa 1791-1837 (1935) is reliable and has worthwhile information on this battle. UnbiasedSN (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not one reliable source here. Closer, Autar Singh Sandhu's book was deprecated by an admin involved in SA topics in the RSN-For example, (link to Sandhu's book) is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer review articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search. There is only one book that can be traced back to Autar Singh Sandhu (which is cited here), and it was written in 1935, there is zero information available whatsoever on the author; on the extent of his academic credentials, tenure, educational posts, his bibliography etc. Given that AFDs are supposed to be based on merit and not enumerating votes, far less weight should be accorded to those who say Sandhu's General Hari Singh Nalwa is a RS, because it is undeniably not. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: This is the user who, previously mentioned, removed all the sources in an attempt to sabotage the voting process.
UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:46, 22 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!} 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kashmir (1814)[edit]

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

The page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [42]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[43] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~:

Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.

Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [44] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The above vote is the AFD nom himself, so it should be discarded.
Keep: Sources are relatively reliable and the article is decently written. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing in sources for specific "Battle of Kashmir". Only two scattered lines mention the first Kashmir expedition by Ranjit Singh. Clearly not much coverage, it could be merged in any of the parent articles but doesn't need its own standalone page. Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. One of those many Indian WP:SYNTH battle pages. RangersRus (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is plenty of coverage on the expedition. [45] [46] [47]

Retitled to "Kashmir expedition (1814) so that it can also stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has also been significantly expanded to constitute remaining under WP:HEY with numerous other sources also being added. Noorullah (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pinging to @RangersRus and @Based Kashmiri per above. Noorullah (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21 I'd not oppose moving it to the "Kashmir expedition" or "First Kashmir expedition" as per sources. However the issue of WP:SIGCOV is refraining me from striking my vote. Also the third source [48] doesn't appear to be reliable, as Shashikant Nishant Sharma is not a historian and the publisher is also questionable. The rest of the sources don't have significant coverage. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move page while AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:35, 22 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]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas[edit]

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

A copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even a single thing here is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. That article was about Dharmapal's invasion of Kannauj and this article is about Devapal's campaign against the Pratiharas, Plus this has nothing to do with the Tripartite Struggle and this definitely doesn't fail WP:GNG. All of the sources cited here are completely reliable.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [49], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.^[1]^[2]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.

Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 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!} 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two mundane keep votes so far, one from the creator and another from a very new user (?!). For my money, I'd say to delete, as the sources presented in the article, and with my own lookups, led to nothing of substantial use that can justify a rigid keep. X (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only found 2,3 lines about this article in the referenced sources. The author is using words like Possibly and we are not keeping the article which is not definite abt the information, Secondly the editor of this article doing his interpretation and adding headings like devpala conflict with X, devpala conflict with y which is not even in the sources.Violetmyers (talk) 07:24, 26 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 ^(🗨️) 04:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright Problems: Due to multiple occurrences of of close paraphrasing, particularly in the lead, I have sent the article to copyright problems. I was originally just going to remove the offending material and make a note of which sources I removed here, so here's a link to the one I removed before realizing the extent of the issues. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

[1] Darusman, Marzuki; Sooka, Yasmin; Ratner, Steven R. (31 March 2011). Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (PDF). United Nations.

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

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

[4] Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.

[5] Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]