Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Events

List of tornadoes causing 100 or more deaths

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

Fails WP:NLIST, also fails WP:NOTDATABASE. E_F⁵ 14:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. E_F⁵ 14:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tornado records and make into a category per above. Obviously notable and 100 is a healthy threshold for these tornadoes, having a way to access a list of these is well within the realm of Wikipedia, but as a list it isn't the greatest fit. To avoid needing to do a refund, the following tornadoes here do not have articles:

Manikganj, Singair and Nawabganj, Bangladesh (1973), 681 deaths
1969 East Pakistan tornado, 660 deaths (this is one I'm most likely to create!)
Magura and Narail Districts, Bangladesh (1964), 500 deaths
Madaripur and Shibchar, Bangladesh (1977), 500 deaths
North of Cooch Behar and surrounding areas, India / Bangladesh (1963), 300 deaths
Bhakua and Haripur unions, Bangladesh (1972), 300 deaths
Comilla, Bangladesh (1969), 263 deaths
Border of Orissa and West Bengal, India (1998), 250 deaths
Calcutta, India (1838), 250 deaths
Faridpur and Dhaka Districts, Bangladesh (1961), 210 deaths
14 miles southwest of Mymensingh, Bangladesh (1972), 200 deaths
Faridpur District, Bangladesh (1951), 200 deaths
Baliakandi, Bangladesh (1973), 200 deaths
Parshuram, Fulgazi, Somarpur, and Sonagazi, Bangladesh (1981), 200 deaths
Jaipur and Keonjhar Districts, India (1978), 173 deaths
Guntur and Chirala, India (1936), 162 deaths
Kandi, India (1993), 145 deaths
Naria, Zajira and Bhederganj, Bangladesh (1908), 141 deaths
Karimpur, India (1978), 128 deaths
Kapundi, Erandi, Dhanbeni and Rengalbeda, Bangladesh (1981), 120 deaths
Borni, Bangladesh (1986), 120 deaths
Dhaka, Bangladesh (1908), 118 deaths
Mokshedpur, Bhanga and Tungipara, Bangladesh (1977), 111 deaths
11 miles West of Bogra, Bangladesh (1974), 100 deaths

Maybe these would go into a List of Bangladesh tornadoes / List of Indian tornadoes article. I'll get an HTML of this article today to save their sources from being lost to deleted-article space. Departure– (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alleged Lahore college rape case

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

Fails NEVENT. no WP:INDEPTH coverage. and IMO its, WP:TOOSOOON and WP:THEREISNORUSH

Given the substantial evidence refuting the alleged incident, I propose that we consider the Deletion of this article based on several Wikipedia guidelines:

1. Verifiability: The claims made in the article are contradicted by official reports and statements from recognized authorities such as the FIA and CM Punjab, as reported by Dawn News https://www.dawn.com/news/1865944 and The Nation https://www.nation.com.pk/17-Oct-2024/cm-maryam-clears-mist-on-fake-student-rape-allegations, questioning the verifiability of the current content.

2. BLP: The article's content could potentially harm the reputations of living persons based on unverified and disputed claims, violating the BLP policy that demands rigorous standards for sourcing in contentious cases.

3. NPOV: The article may fail to maintain a neutral point of view, as it presents disputed claims without sufficient context from authoritative sources that challenge these claims.

4. Notability: The ongoing disputes and contradictions regarding the facts suggest that the incident may not meet the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage by reliable sources.

These concerns collectively suggest that the article may not meet Wikipedia's content standards and could merit deletion or significant revision. I recommend opening a discussion for deletion to carefully consider these issues within the community, Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a newscast of information, much less false or speculation. Jinnllee90 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 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 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEWSEVENT An alleged rape that didn't happen. Or did it? The perpetrator was the school security guard. Or he wasn't. Protests and alleged police brute force and rubber bullets, tear gas, etc. There was an investigation, with mixed findings. The family of the alleged victim said her injuries were actually from a fall at home. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Internet, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability, verifiability, and neutrality standards. The allegations have been refuted by reliable sources. Additionally, it risks violating the BLP policy by presenting unverified claims about living individuals. Ainty Painty (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As an editor who has been keeping their eyes on this one for a while, this is a more complicated subject than it would first appear. Firstly, even if the event is not notable, I would claim that the response was- protesting, activism, and unrest, which received a lot of coverage internationally. Secondly, I would claim that there is a really significant possibility here of people with significant political power and interest in keeping Punjab College's name clean influencing people to give a certain outcome- notice that although the father of the victim has spoken and said it was an accident, the victim herself has not, and consider power dynamics in Pakistan between men and women. Also consider that the security footage has been deleted as per major sources, and that the system in Pakistan may have a significant risk of people in positions of power being able to use their influence in such a way. I am not accusing anyone of anything here, it is just a comment. I would also suggest that a lot of edits on the page have been done by Pakistani IP addresses with very standard ChatGPT-esque comments and attempts to delete- I was interested to see that somebody finally found the correct place to nominate the article for deletion. I think this is all worth bearing in mind when coming to a conclusion on this article. However, the counter argument is that Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, and we are not here to interpret the sources as much as we are to summarise them. As it is, the secondary sources have dismissed the allegations and this is a bit of a null story which deletion would not be an undue response to. I hope I have provided some context and I am being balanced to both sides of this discussion.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much on WP:BLPCRIME concerns and a wholly unclear narrative; either we have it right and proper or we don't at all, especially considering the current issues regarding WMF. Nate • (chatter) 17:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alleged mean not verified. Its hoax.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I can appreciate Spiralwidget's thoughtful perspective, I think in this case WP:BLPCRIME issues and conflicting sourcing issues as relates to WP:Verifiability make it impossible for us to have an article at this time.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Bahrain (1811)

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

One amongst many poorly sourced and unverifiable articles by this editor. Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bahrain, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is all very dubious, I must say. Yes, poorly sourced and yes, unverifiable and what's more blithering rot. Lorimer^[1] tells us that the Omanis attacked Bahrain, under-defended by the Wahhabis, in 1811 together with the Utub. That's it. Of Qajars, there were none. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. CitrusHemlock 18:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tabriz (1757)

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

"There Mohammad Hassan Khan occupied Tabriz". That is literally all this article says about this "battle". The cited source doesn't say anything more than that ("First Tabrīz fell then,). Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Muscat (1811)

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

One amongst many poorly sourced and unverifiable articles by this editor. Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Oman. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many of these are there? Because this user needs to stop and these articles bulk removed. Unverifiable and a deeply dubious presentation - there was indeed a Wahhabi siege of Muscat in 1811 but it was lifted with no involvement of Qajars. A plea of help went to Iran at the end of 1811 and a force of 1,500 Persians and four guns returned to battle the Wahhabi forces in 1812 but not at Muscat, but Nakhal, Samail and Izki. This article is a whole confused mess that inflates a period of scrappy fighting throughout Oman to the status of a 'battle' and with an incorrect date. Lorimer, page 444 refers. BTW, there IS an article for the Battle of Izki and that's a hot mess as well! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkhanate campaign to Bithynia

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

One of many questionable articles by this editor. Couldn't find anything about this so called event - doesn't seem notable. This is the only part of the article that only talks about this event; "This Ilkhanid army succeeded in recapturing several Ottoman-held castles and towns in the region and dealt a blow to Osman I's forces" HistoryofIran (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 23 March 1654

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

This article was tagged as a hoax. I'm fairly certain it is, along with Action of 2 May 1654, but since the article has existed for nearly 20 years at this point I figured it made sense to give it a fighting chance.

The 2 May 1654 article cites this JSTOR article. I couldn't find reference to events on 23 March or 2 May 1654 in that article, nor could I find evidence of these events elsewhere on the web besides Wikipedia mirrors.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 16 April 1695, where a similar conclusion was drawn. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Sri Lanka, and Portugal. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa. The cited JSTOR article describes in great detail the Van Goens mission to Colombo and Goa in 1653 and 1654. Page 94 reads: "The galleons had reached Colombo towards the end of March 1654 and, as Van Goens had feared, after a splintering engagement outside the Colombo harbour entrance, they had broken through". This description fits the Action of 23 March 1654 exactly: place, date, situation, context, number of ships, result. The article is certainly not a hoax; the battle indeed took place and I am sure that a more thorough investigation could reveal the source that the author of this article evidently must have used. Having said that, it is clear to me that the title of the article is wrong. For lack of a commonly accepted name for the battle, a descriptive name was employed: Action of 23 March 1654. The battle is not known and described under that name. Many articles titled "Action of (date)" have the same problem. No battle is known by such a name. A google or jstor search will not produce any result. What to do? There is a notability guideline that helps out. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide in the section Events says: Where an event does not have a specific name that has been accepted by reliable sources, it is more likely that it should be covered in an existing article about a higher-level operation, rather than in a stand-alone article. Hence, I propose to merge both the Action of 23 March 1654 and the Action of 2 May 1654 in the article about the Dutch-Portuguese War. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruud Buitelaar Ah - well spotted. I had assumed that because the article was named so specifically, an event on 23 March would have been specifically dated in the source, I skimmed the relevant sections but missed the quote you added. I think merging makes sense to me since the actions described here did actually happen. Sam Walton (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did a search after looking at the CSD tagging and I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources that suggested this event took place. I was about to PROD the page since it isn't an obvious or blatant hoax, but no coverage either way. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the one who posted the initial CSD tag. No results turn up in Google Books or Google Scholar despite apparently being a battle from a major war, making it very likely a fabrication. Lazman321 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and fails verification. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa per above. I'm not sure why you'd vote delete when a merge has been proposed with a valid target and rationale and been accepted as a solution by the nominator! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb The comment order is confusing, the merge vote came after the delete votes :) Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, then checked. Of course, what I missed was the am and pm bits. Sort of important, wouldntcha think? Boing... idiot... All deleters duly forgiven, apologies and comely blushes all round. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive in Podrinje (1993)

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

After removing unreliable local news portals etc, we are left with citations to two pages of the CIA history. I checked them, and all three of the citations failed verification, the only apparent reference to this fighting being a paragraph fragment as follows: "The VRS Drina Corps attacked again late in May and crushed Muslim forces in the salient , driving them back some 15 kilometers to the Praca River and eliminating the threat to Visegrad . Follow - on attacks from Cajnice in the southeast toward Gorazde itself , however , gained little ground . " on page 185. This isn't significant coverage, and therefore doesn't meet WP:N. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to be clear i didnt put this sources but i think that this offensive is in one official book, i will try to find and add content in it, if its bad or not proper, then delete the whole thing (just please dont bring opera singer admins to blocc me like in smolucca) Wynnsanity (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone didn't go to geography classes. Podrinje means "on the river Drina" or "next to the Drina" and thus includes the entire region. at the same time, I checked your claims and of course they are fake, if you had entered and edited the pages without bad intentions, you would have seen that on page 186 it is written "The Bosnian Serbs had nevertheless achieved most of their 1993 objectives in the Drina valley and This time Muslim bravery alone was not enough to prevail against the stronger, better organized and better led Serb troops. The text is badly written and the sources are in the wrong place, but I won't say anything because I understand everything about you and I don't want to be blocked because I love Wikipedia. If you would be kind enough to allow me to only summarize the entire Balkan Battlegrounds article here as I did before, I would appreciate it, thank you Sir Wynnsanity (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep adding material to articles that is clearly not supported by the sources, then you are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. I’m not sure what it is you think you are doing, but it is extremely unhelpful to the encyclopaedia. Please stop doing it, either through this account, meat puppets or IPs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? 1) I only use this account, the fact that other users are not satisfied with you is your problem 2.) I wrote a text that only appears in Balkan Battl. 3.) you have no arguments and never had any 2A00:10:9910:4C01:193C:197E:5B6B:E8CC (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They say, from an IP. With regards especially to your last point, please remember not to make personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Software and Open Source Symposium

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources covered this event. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 09:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Software, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I conducted a WP: BEFORE and reached the same conclusion as the nominator. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Moss Side shooting

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

Fails WP:EVENT. All the coverage is from August-September 2018. No lasting WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From a search, I can't even find what happened to the two people who were arrested. There is not enough coverage to write an article with a complete picture of the event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, redirect to List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom#2010s, where it has an entry PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Philippines Piper PA-23 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: a classic case of a run-of-the-mill light aircraft crash that resulted in brief news coverage but nothing further that would support notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another case of a light aircraft crash that is totally unrelevant. Protoeus (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information to Piper PA-23#Accidents and incidents. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tirana teen stabbing

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst tragic, it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Schools, and Albania. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why? it is informative. Lightnightx3x (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For something to exist on Wikipedia it has to meet the notability guidelines. Single incidents like this typically don't as they don't have long-lasting coverage in reliable sources. CoconutOctopus talk 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. I's still a tragic event and people deserve to know what happened. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to keep it; see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. CoconutOctopus talk 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many incidents like this have had limited coverage and still have a Wikipedia article. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Procyon117 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm sorry a youngster died, but realistically in many parts of the world, a knife fight between kids with a fatality isn't noteworthy, it's just Tuesday. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article can't be deleted just because some people think it's an ordinary thing to happen. The topic is much deeper than that. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event has received significant coverage in Albania. The media is continuously addressing this topic. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I believe this article should be kept. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
You are only supposed to !vote once. Please remove your additional "keep" bold-text. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth mentioning the reaction of the public opinion. This event has had a much broader impact than initially expected. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt WP:NOTNEWS applies but this page also has some significant violations of WP:BLPCRIME - I deleted a sentence identifying a juvenile who has not stood trial as "the killer". There are additional issues with the assumption of guilt in article copy that are still problematic though less egregious. Beyond these problems there is no indication that this is anything other than a very unfortunate crime - there's nothing encyclopedically relevant about those. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether it is a remarkable event or not, it is too early to tell. Deletion and if the event proves to be significant it can be rewritten. Why such a hurry? LefterDalaka (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already significant. It has caused a lot of concern and has been subjected to a lot of media coverage. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most crimes are non-notable even if they cause an immediate sensation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This crime has caused an immediate reaction and widespread shock, showing that it is notable Lightnightx3x (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it shows that it is notable because of the media significantly covering it. Lightnightx3x (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not have sufficient notability (such things happen on a daily basis, unfortunately), and as per WP:NOTNEWS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. You don't see fatalities from stabbing fights in Albania every day. Every major news outlet in Albania is reporting this. I wouldn't have made this article if this would be an ordinary thing to happen. You don't see this every day. Also, I don't mean to violate WP:NOTNEWS. It was something shocking. School fights can happen every day, even with knives, but not with a fatality and such a big reaction. Lightnightx3x (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI - replying to every !vote at an AfD is often perceived as WP:BLUDGEONING and is frowned upon. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for informing me. Sorry. Lightnightx3x (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightnightx3x, I appreciate your desire to create new articles. However, you are still new here and have to go through a process of learning and getting experience. When multiple established editors say you are wrong, indeed you are. I would advise you to focus on improving existing articles first, and then as you gain experience, create new ones from scratch. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends (Cricket)

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

Non notable cricket tournament trying to use WP:NOTINHERITED to assert a notability. Just because a number of notable former players competed at this event, it doesn't mean the event itself is notable, and the coverage for the event does not pass WP:GNG. We have deleted many similar non-notable "legends/masters" event articles like this in the past. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and England. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: It's the same page that was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends, now under a new title. Both titles should be salted as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. It is different from the previous page and this is a notable tournament approved by England and Wales Cricket Board. I invite Red_Phoenix to share the views here as i can saw their contribution on the page earlier.Shawshank123 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same tournament that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends (although that was an AFD with minimal participation). Please provide evidence that it passes WP:GNG rather than just stating that it's notable- most of the sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most I can say is I declined the speedy deletion request as being dissimilar to the linked previous deletion request, which was not to the link that Joseph2302 put above but instead to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Legends Cricket Trophy. Knowing about the other discussion now, I probably would have still recommended AFD just because of the minimal participation and the recreation that indicates someone else disagrees (this is a “spirit of the policy” interpretation rather than a letter of the policy one), but I make no opinion on how noteworthy the event itself actually is. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a mistake on the G4 nomination, sorry. But agree that a second AFD is more sensible than speedy deletion, as the 1st AFD had limited participation. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khon Kaen Silk Festival

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

Unsourced two sentence orphaned article that's been tagged for improvement for 4 years. I'm struggling to find any sources that show it meets WP:GNG, as everything either seems to be a simple "here is when the festival is" or Wikipedia mirror content. CoconutOctopus talk 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Thailand. CoconutOctopus talk 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge into the Culture section of Khon Kaen, if I could actually find a suitable reference for it. Since I can't, I might have to lean delete for now. Procyon117 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty years later, I've added a bit more and some sources (I don't use ref tags, but feel free to convert them if you must!). For what it's worth, I think we should keep, because it's a big event and there's certainly more to add when someone with better Thai comes along some time in the next two decades. Sources regarding rural Thailand are a bit more challenging to find, but we're hopefully still trying to reduce our Anglo-Saxon bias. Henry ^Flower 19:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those sources are independent enough for them to help the article meet GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search of the festival: [1] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate this! Wasn't able to search in Thai and searching in English didn't give me anything I felt made it reach the threshold. CoconutOctopus talk 08:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as very big national or regional festival. Next time, please do research first and then nominate for deletion. Thanks ManoiCMU (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources that help this article meet the notabilitu requirements then that's fantastic, please add them. As I stated, I did search, and didn't find anything (presumably as there's not much in English about it). Please don't assume I 'didn't do research'. CoconutOctopus talk 08:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav September Offensive

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

The article does not meet the criteria for a wikipedia page , as it has no information on the offensive itself , and the sources used only speak about the aftermath. The sources are also hard to verify , one of them is a blog post which is not a reliable source according to wikipedia's guidelines. The other source comes from a deleted website so it is hard to verify. The article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:12, 17 November 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 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with you. The page, in a literal sense, doesn't even contain a single sentence about an actual offensive or what happened. It seems the creator of the page made it simply because a source mentioned an offensive in September. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2025

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

Contested draft. WP:BEFORE search reveals a lot about a couple of 2024 pageants (mostly Miss Universe 2024), but little to nothing about Miss Universe 2025. Might be a ”not now” situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:TOOSOON it is. This year’s edition concluded recently on November 16. As one of the Big Four beauty pageants, it is anticipated that reliable sources will soon surface as countries finalize their representatives for the 2025 edition (four of which I see are already confirmed, with sources available but not yet included in the article). Furthermore, preparations and hosting bids for the upcoming edition are already in progress, with related updates expected to emerge shortly. I recommend adding tags, a citation or notability warning, to the article, rather than opting for its complete deletion. 'Draftify' is also a recommended approach.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:V (verifiability) and WP:N (notability), the article does not cite any sources to support its claims or establish the subject's significance. It seems more like an attempt to create a page for the sake of it, rather than based on reliable and independent coverage that meets Wikipedia's standards. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOSOON, zero sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOSOON

نوح^فث ^{Let's Chat!} 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see WP:TOSOON as a valid reason for deletion in this case. Scheduled or expected future events that are notable and almost certain to occur should be included, as outlined in WP:FUTURE. For an event like Miss Universe, one of the Big Four beauty pageants, its 2025 edition is undoubtedly going to happen. References to its upcoming editions, such as new rules and the introduction of a Latin reality show, are already available. Additionally, host country bids are open, and some participating countries have already begun their selection processes, with a few having finalized their representatives. While the article could be considered taking to draftspace, it definitely does not warrant deletion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor I guess this is a keep !vote. My concerns were more about the lack of sourcing (that is, it's "too soon" to have sourcing) more than anything else. The sourcing has improved since. If only the draftification wasn't contested. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses I agree, the article lacks sources, and the "delete" votes are understandable, particularly regarding concerns about it being "too soon." However, outright deletion doesn't seem rational. For events of high significance, sources often emerge relatively quickly. I recommend exploring Spanish and Thai media, as there’s a strong likelihood of more coverage in these languages, given that the most recent edition was held in Mexico and the organizers are based in Mexico and Thailand. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor A non-unilateral draftification is a legit alternative to deletion in this circumstance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor To be clear, do you want to "draftify," "keep," or is either fine? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given its significance, I would prioritize a "keep" vote (I am not against "draftify" if the consensus favours). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is not hurting anybody, also there's no need to wait until the last minute for a competition, pageant, tournament etc. to happen in order to have its Wikipedia article. Gianluca91 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election

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

I fail to see how this election is notable enough to warrant its own page. Like anything, elections aren't automatically or inherently notable merely because they happened (WP:NRV). I can't find any coverage on the election besides that D-R candidate Ashley became Lt. Governor, and that's it. There isn't any information on how many votes he received or why the election was unopposed. Basically everything here can be found on Ashley's page and the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri page. Also, the only source used in the article is OurCampaigns (marked as unreliable on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial_sources), which in my experience frequently provides incorrect information, including fabricating details and candidates. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same problem. For example on how OurCampaings is a bad source see this version of the 1845 governor election in Virginia and this version of the 1848 governor election in Virginia where the article, using OurCampaigns, says the candidate won unopposed with a single person casting a ballot. When you look at those pages now, with reliable sources, you can see that's not the case.

Keep all. The nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE; or if they did not competently. In less than two minutes I found this on the 1820 election: [2] which shows that 1. It was not an uncontested election 2. There were three candidates on the ballot, one of whom (Nathaniel Cook) had a vote count just slightly lower then William H. Ashley. It was a close election. The current article is just wrong and full of factual errors. A major office at the state level falls under WP:NPOL and reasonably elections for politicians who meet WP:NPOL are all notable/encyclopedic because that office is deemed encyclopedic. Also this should be a procedural close because WP:SIGCOV on these elections is going to be different for each one, and this a procedurally a bad bundled nomination that would be overturned easily at WP:DELETIONREVIEW for bad process. 4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All as repetitious electioncruft. I tried to fight against these kinds of articles in the past to little success, so I am a little bit biased against these types. WP:NPOL is not about elections, but politicians. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the respective gubernatorial elections (where another source other than Ourcampaigns can be found). I agree with 1ctinus's view that it is unnecessary to have separate articles on the election to every individual position when they took place at the same time. If we can combine (e.g.) presidential and vice presidential elections at the national level in almost all cases (like 1891 Brazilian presidential election or 1910 Mexican general election), it seems somewhat odd not to do so at sub-national level. Number 5 7 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per WP:NOPAGE, which can be applied to all nominated articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trabzon

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

Cannot find anything in Google Scholar and hard to tell if the linked source is enough to justify the article Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bryer seems to be reputable but I am not an academic so I don’t know whether that sourcing is enough. Bryer was writing in the 1960s but a lot of the stuff which was unpublished in his day should now be available by searching for "Trebizond" at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=Trebizond&_sd=&_ed=&_hb= so has anyone studied and published a more modern work based on the primary sources? Also the Ottoman archives are available as far as I know, so should not they be cited in some more modern secondary source? And why does the article not exist in Turkish Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha at the end of page 202 Bryer says “the attack on Trebizond never materialised” Chidgk1 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this was an LLM hallucination? If anyone can convincingly dispute that, please ping me and I'll have a second look. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a 1461 siege and a 1916 Campaign but of an 1833 battle there is nothing to see. The campaign could be a redirect as an ATD... Also, I'm a poet but don't know it... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines + TV Screens Tour

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tour that fails WP:NTOUR. G11 and BLAR has been tried before. Notability-tagged for 11 years. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Ireland, Portugal, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, doesn't meet WP:GNG for an article in its own right and only has a passing mention on the Union J article, so don't think a redirect is necessary. Orange sticker (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Here are some reviews of the tour: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] See also: [10], [11]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval of the sources mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restore redirect to Union J. This had previously been merged. There are a couple of reviews in those sources, but the first source isn't bylined (and not a RS from the look of it); the Irish Independent is RS, SIGCOV; Oxford Mail local media not bylined; Mancunian Matters is hyper-local but has editorial oversight and is bylined; HitTheFloor is debatable, but a review nonetheless and there's an editor in place; Liverpool Echo is a WP:ROUTINE gig announcement from their sports editor (!); The Scotsman is a bylined review in an RS; the last two sources are an album review and a tour announcement in the Birmingham Mail. All in all, this is mostly routine, does have a couple decent gig reviews in RS but in the whole is not the stuff that amounts to making the TOUR notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Tag me in the below discussion so i can get my quickest reponse possible out to you.

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS incident seems to have had a fairly short news cycle. Additionally no passenger or exterior fatalities and only a total loss of the plane. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Iran. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per my comments at the 1st AfD discussion, a mere 2 months ago. A second AfD is not justified at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per criteria 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. Oppose a speedy close. This was a minor accident with zero fatalities and only two people with minor injuries. There is nothing encyclopedic about this event. We need to see WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple kinds of sources to prove long-term significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. FYI We've had bus and plane crashes with multiple deaths get deleted in the past for this reason. Many vehicular accidents of all kinds happen every day around the world. We don't include them unless they have lasting significance that is not WP:ROUTINE news coverage immediately after the event.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

um… That fallacy doesn’t apply here. I’m not pointing at other existing articles. How does this article meet WP:EVENTCRIT?4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No fatalities, yes, but this does appear to have been a case of a scheduled airline flight that resulted in the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um… that is not a policy based argument under any notability guideline.4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. This consensus is an informal WP:AV tradition that's not firmly backed by any actual notability guideline, and there's a distinct tendency towards WP:RECENTISM in its use. I think we need to move away from it. Carguychris (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris Nonsense. WP:AV is a WikiProject. It doesn't have the power to establish policy nor record community consensus opinions at AFD. We have a page for recognized WP:COMMONOUTCOMES and WP:SNGs to record policy backed WP:CONSENSUS notability opinions that are allowed to be used at AFD. Vaguely waving to a small WikiProject doesn't set the precedent you think it does. There is no established consensus for loss of hull accidents at AFD. And frankly if WP:AV wants to push that they need to go through an WP:RFC like all the other COMMONOUTCOMES entries/SNGs have done before it carries any weight. That means going through the formal community vetting process and getting that formally written into a notability or deletion guideline page. Only then can a credible claim of a community consensus guideline be made. My guess is any RFC of this nature would fail easily and rapidly, as the community as a whole has widely supported WP:EVENTCRIT and its application to accidents of any kind. 4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my post. I'm agreeing with you! I think we need to move away from it—"it" being this informal, groundless notion within WP:AV that any hull loss of a large, modern airliner is somehow automatically notable enough for a standalone article. Yes, such events inevitably attract news coverage, but as Aviationwikiflight correctly points out below, arguing notability using only day-after news coverage and the inevitable, statutorily-required government incident report flies in the face of WP:EVENTCRIT #4, not to mention WP:NOTNEWS. Carguychris (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. Sorry I reversed what you said somehow. lol The whole green text thing threw me off. 4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: Per criterion #4, "routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There isn't much that would give this event enduring significance since none of the sources I've found had in-depth coverage of the event since the said coverage either happened in the aftermath of the accident or after the release of the final report, with most news coverage in persian rehashing what was contained in the final report without any analysis. Alternatively, a merge to Caspian Airlines#Accidents and incidents is also a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mahshahr Airport and Caspian Airlines as appropriate. Per nom and Aviationwikiflight, this accident lacks sufficient notability for a standalone article. Carguychris (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event had in depth coverage worldwide by independent sources and has a WP:lasting effect with improved safety regulations so an accident like this can be prevented in the future, including 9 safety recommendations (three to the Iran Civil Aviation Organization, four to Caspian Airlines one to Mahshahr Airport and IRI aerodrome). So article meeting all aspects of WP:Event. 38.87.93.147 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)— 38.87.93.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Issuing recommendations after an aviation accident is common practice so whether or not an event had lasting effects needs to be demonstrated. Whilst there was coverage of the aftermath of the event, there doesn't seem to be any significant or in-depth coverage of what happened to the flight and how. Additionally, the lack of continued coverage in secondary sources that also provide significant and in-depth coverage of the event seems to be completely lacking, so this event doesn't meet all aspects of WP:N(E). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please examine whether the coverage in RS justifies a standalone article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado

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

This article was first brought up on a project-space talk page by someone, although I can't remember exactly where. Seems to fail WP:NWEATHER from a cursory glance, no significant, lasting impacts, wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which I know isn't a valid deletion reason), and over half of the references are to the NWS. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Tennessee. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Deletion Only 13/30 resources are from NWS, which makes up 43%, so you saying over half are from NWS is hyperbolic. This caused a lasting impact in the city of Wynne and the tornado is talked about through articles to this day. Just because it wasn't the deadliest doesn't mean it doesn't deserve and article, using that logic, the Greenfield Tornado shouldn't get an article because it wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak sequence, so yeah, how l the amount of death the tornado caused is not a valid reason to delete the article. Hoguert (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair with the Greenfield tornado rationale, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. E_F⁵ 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay comparing articles is not really a good argument on my part but I still stand by everything else I've said Hoguert (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit early to gauge a "lasting" impact, only one year after the event? Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually (at least with tornadoes), discussion of a tornado six months-or-so after the event shows the tornado’s lasting impacts, which I don’t see here. E_F⁵ 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify – For stand-alone articles on individual tornadoes, I look for a couple of things. (1) Is there lasting impacts and lasting coverage, (2) if out of draftspace, does the article have the potential to pass GAN (since to me, that helps establish if it deserves to be split from the outbreak article), and (3) size of article vs outbreak section.

Based on a quick Google search, I see lasting coverage, with several articles published related to the tornado and/or damage caused over a year later (examples: [12][13][14][15]) Two of those articles are related to the High School, so I see lasting impacts as well just based on those articles. In fact, searching "2023 Wynne tornado" and setting the news articles to start at the most recent shows an article within the last week related to the tornado/damage. So lasting coverage (WP:LASTING part of WP:Notability) is a checkmark.
Does it have enough to pass GAN? In my opinion, yes. It 100% needs some work done, which is why I also mentioned possible draftification. However, as a writer of several stand-alone GA tornado articles, roughly 20k bytes is the minimum for GAN potential. I know size itself is not factored into GAN, but 20k bytes or more in size most likely will give enough detail-based length for a successful GAN. This article has over 25k bytes, so a checkmark there.
Size comparison between 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado & the parent section Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Wynne–Parkin–Turrell, Arkansas/Drummonds–Burlison, Tennessee. The section in the outbreak article, which is specifically for the damage path, is 11.5k bytes. The stand-alone section for the track is 13.4k bytes. An aftermath section specific to the tornado adds 2.4k bytes. The meteorological synopsis section is not unique, so that size does not count and neither does the introduction. So in all, the stand-alone article has roughly only 4,300 bytes (aka characters) worth of additional unique-to-the-tornado content. The outbreak section cites 3 sources for the tornado track, while the article cites about 23 sources for the track + aftermath sections. To me, the additional byte length is probably the sources. Therefore, there is not much unique-to-the-tornado content in the article. For me, this is the main reason I would say draftify rather than delete. To me, this point is an X.

More unique info over the outbreak section would for sure make it notable for an article. I am ok with it remaining an article itself under the ideology of WP:FIXIT occurring. I do not believe this should be deleted, but at the present moment, I am leaning against it remaining in mainspace without additional information being added to the article/aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent analysis, I should probably use the “would it be a GA” test more often. I would also support draftification, as it’s clear a lot of work (kudos to Hoguert) was put into this article. E_F⁵ 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources to verify notability. There's still news coming out this year to back up the claims for lasting coverage. Also, I believe it was ChessEric who stated this shouldn't have an article - it was under the discussion for retiring WP:TOOSOON deletions when sources unambiguously do exist, and it was in the context of the Little Rock tornado. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per The Weather Event Writer.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Worship Day

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:INHERITED, this subject has got little coverage only because of its creator Asaram. The coverage of this subject is nil since Asaram's own image is going through a deep crisis for many years. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents Worship Day is a widely celebrated festival in India. It is well recognized by government officials. As stated in the article: It is officially celebrated by the Chhattisgarh Govt in schools and colleges as ordered by the Chief Minister. State government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party made it an official celebration. In 2017 the District collector in Madhya Pradesh issued a notice for schools to celebrate it and so on. There are a lot of independent and reliable references which prove the validity of these statements. This article must not be nominated for discussion just because the image of the initiator i.e. Asaram Bapu is under crisis. Wikipedia is a platform that depends on facts and notability of an article and this festival is being celebrated since more than 10 years in India and it's a compulsory program to attend for thousands of school students all over India. SukritiVarma (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents Worship Day is day that's being celebrated officially by the government now. This celebration is compulsory in schools as is evident by these references: ^[2]^[3] There are lot more such references, I don't see any valid reason why this page was nominated for deletion, it must be retained. SushasiniGupta (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your sources are only saying that this was a government action. Not every day propagated by the government needs to have their own article. Same way we have no article on "Samvidhan Hatya Diwas".[16] CharlesWain (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Worship Day is not just a government action, this is a festival that's quite widely accepted by the masses. Since this is a festival that celebrates emotional bond between parents and children, so people of all religion are accepting it. It cannot be compared with Samvidhan Hatya Diwas. Because this festival is celebrated by masses not only in India but in abroad as well.

1. Even Muslims are celebrating this day as Abba Ammi Ibadat Diwas [17]

2. Sanatan Dharam Sabha Celebrates “Matra Pitra Poojan Diwas” [18]

3. News coverage: More than 10,000 people celebrated this event in Kurla [19] SushasiniGupta (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The existence of this article, at the present moment, tantamounts to WP:SOAP. CharlesWain (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Both of the editors who voted for "keep" above are blatant WP:SPAs and have edited nothing outside this topic.[20][21] CharlesWain (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP: Neutral Point of View - Articles with reliable sources must be retained, even if the subject is controversial. Decisions in Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion discussions are determined by the strength of arguments based on policies, such as WP:Notability, rather than the edit count of participants. My reasoning highlights the independent cultural significance of Parents Worship Day and its coverage in reliable sources, demonstrating that the topic's notability extends beyond its association with its creator. SushasiniGupta (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use an AI platform to write AfD rationales, or copy basic AfD policies we should all already know. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No SIGCOV or any long lasting effect. INHERITED is fulfilled. The keep !votes are misleading and do not bring up any credible argument based on our P&Gs. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents Worship Day has become a cultural event observed by various schools and communities, reflecting its relevance beyond its initial introduction. The day promotes values of respect and gratitude toward parents, which hold significance in societal traditions. Multiple independent sources have documented its observance, indicating it has received attention outside of its originator’s influence. Removing the article would overlook an established practice that resonates with many individuals and groups. I'mAll4 Wiki (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Per WP:DLC dislike for the subject or Dislike of the creator should not be reason for over-zealous article deletion, the notability of the article should be independently assessed. The nominator of this deletion lists down very plainly their dislike for creator, without arguing on quality or notability of article itself.

If we can find multiple secondary sources WP:DIVERSE covering this event outside any reference to its creator, this article should not be deleted

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE across years (even after presumed interest waning on creator) is another factor in favor of this article

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-jammu-redefines-the-day-as-mother-father-worship-day-2584739 authored by Ishfaq-ul-Hassan on DNA India
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/community/parents-worship-day-on-february-14-40462/ on The Tribune India

Nisingh.8 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They merely noted the subject is controversial and has a shaky public image. Hardly anywhere near WP:IDLI and just stating a known fact. Nate • (chatter) 23:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MrSchimpf - i was also merely stating that deletion nomination did not highlight anything apart from creator image and per Wikipedia:INHERITED if creator’s notability cannot be used to lend notability to article, vice-versa also may not apply Nisingh.8 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is at best a news release as it concerns celebration of this day by Satsang Prachar Sewa Mandal. Your second source does not even have author information and uses a byline, it's very clearly a press release per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lorimer, Gordon (1915). Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Government of Bombay. p. 843.
^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/ranchi/government-school-students-to-worship-parents-in-jharkhand/story-mBGxvrH4HW33cOOZarLSSL.html
^ https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/madhya-pradesh-chhindwara-collector-asks-people-to-worship-their-parents-on-valentines-day/545893/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asaram#Teachings and views, which is much clearer about the event than this collection of press releases barely holding this article together, and which has nothing at all (I can't even call it a false balance) from those who still wish to celebrate Valentine's Day and their opposition to this event. Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you calling independent news coverages as press release?

If people in India are celebrating Parents Worship Day and government is also making the celebration compulsory in schools, that itself proves how widely this is being adopted in India. It's okay that other people in Western countries or even in India prefer celebrating Valentine's Day but that doesn't mean you are going to delete this page.SushasiniGupta (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stories specifically say that very few actual people wanted to celebrate it and it was forced upon them as an administrative or government mandate rather than an organic celebration. One of the stories is literally a state education minister putting out PR for the holiday to cover up the subject's various public issues. There are no counter-sources about how others feel about a holiday being forced upon them when another holiday has existed for hundreds of years to celebrate, and the vast majority of sources here talk about veneration of parents, even if they do completely unforgivable things, over loving others. There's no balance here to be found, just blatant PR for an effort to force a holiday upon people. Nate • (chatter) 17:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you saying it's a forced one, there are lots of references where students became emotional and expressed gratitude for celebrating the unique bond that they have with parents.

Here is the quote from this reference [22]: "We invited our parents to the school and offered them flowers, worshipped them and finally sought their blessings," said Nishant Mishra, a Class-V student

"It was really a very touching moment for me. At least these children would learn how important parents are for them," Lipsa Parida, a mother of two boys.

Since these are quotes, now don't tell me these 5th class kids and their parents are doing PR. they are expressing what they felt and this is covered in news.

Even Muslims students were touched by this day, another quote[23] Aliya Pathan, a student, said, “In Islam, they say that jannat is beneath your parents’ feet and they should be treated with a lot of respect. So, we decided to celebrate Valentine’s Day by pledging to take care of our parents.” Umair Sheikh, another student, said, “Love comes in so many forms. SushasiniGupta (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the detailed history and widespread adoption of Parents' Worship Day across various Indian states and institutions, the topic demonstrates cultural significance and societal impact. The celebration has been officially recognized by state governments such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Gujarat, and has gained support from educational institutions, NGOs, and community organizations. Independent media coverage highlights its relevance as a family-centric alternative to Valentine's Day. These factors satisfy Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines, making it an important cultural phenomenon worth retaining as an article. Exposethefacts (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gptzero result for this comment came to be 73% AI generated. Also real world notability=/= Wikipedia notability, you have to prove how this article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines and standards on that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying after relisting) @Ratnahastin I was trying to broaden up on coverage and notability of event outside its creator, and while below is not comprehensive lists but could eaily find mentions on observance of this event/day at many other places below via simple search -
Parents Worship Day at a school in Jalandhar [24]

Parents Worship Day at a school [Kendriya Vidyalaya Cossipore] in Kolkata [25]

Parents Worship Day event at Rotoract Club of Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Indore [26] (p-175)

Parents Worship Day as one of the program arranged by National Association for Blind, India [27] (p-39)

Parents Worship Day by Sri Venkateswara Temple, Michigan, US [28]
Nisingh.8 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all you could find are some random no name schools celebrating this day, then I'm afraid you are only corroborating my point that real world notability=/=Wikipedia notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For an article to be notable on Wikipedia, there should be reliable, independent sources, and there exists multiple such sources for Parents Worship Day page. Following are few of the reliable sources for your verification. FYI: These are from the most reliable news websites in India such as : BBC, Times of India etc.

It's official: Chhattisgarh renames Valentines Day as 'Matru-Pitru Diwas'. ^[1]

Parents Worship Day: After Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand To Implement Jailed Godman Asaram’s Advice ^[2]^[3]

Chhattisgarh makes Parents Worship Day a compulsory observance in schools on February 14 ^[4]

FYI: I hope you got a gist of how this is notable in terms of Wiki policies, please refer the article and go through all the 30+ references present there. This is a discussion not a list of references so I mentioned only 4. SushasiniGupta (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Real World notability and Wiki notability both criteria are met in this particular article since this festival is famous in real world and a lot of reliable ref links exist to suffice the notabilitySushasiniGupta (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents' Worship Day Wiki page is supported by independent, reliable and multiple reference links. This is a day that's celebrated across India since the theme has an emotional touch. That's the reason why even though the initiator Asaram Bapu's image is under question currently but this concept has been widely adopted even by government and general public. Just do a Google Search and see tons of references for the enormous acceptance and recognition of this festival.

Those trying to delete this article seem to be doing so just because of initiator's image as mentioned in the comment of the person who initiated the deletion process. But Wiki is not a place to target a page for deletion because the initiator is out of favor.

Let's say a person founded a company or was instrumental in initiating or promulgation of a concept like Tree Plantation Day etc. a concept that is getting wide recognition by public and founder was jailed later, would you delete the company's page as well? Wiki is not a place to target initiatives just because they are from someone whose actions you do not support. Seems an irrelevant discussion and people who saying delete are acting out of emotion not logic. Remember this festival is no longer only associated with its initiator Asaram Bapu, it's now a celebration across countless schools and colleges. Nandwanirajesh (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat this one more time; there is a non-existent balance with this article where it talks only in glowing terms about the holiday, its inventor, and how it's being used as an alternative to V-Day and being forced upon others without any question or criticism. Local school newsletters are not only non-notable, but also non-neutral, and the fact it is being made compulsory to celebrate when V-Day is a completely voluntary holiday needs to be elaborated on, and at this point this feels like an article that never has any intentions about talking about it neutrally. Finally, stating the inventor has some controversial views is not the reason for deletion here and is supported by BLP and will not be removed. Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Liberty Forum

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. BootsED (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating page for deletion for the following issues per WP:DP.

1. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content

The article contains large amounts of puffery and reads like an advertisement. Majority of the article is a list of speakers at conventions, mentions of their books, and external bare urls to their blogs or other websites.

2. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes

The article does not list sources for claims of speakers at various conferences. Several existing sources are primary sources.

The article makes false and misleading claims, engages in original research with no sources, and presents their subjects in a promotional manner.

Example 1, stating that "James O'Keefe – journalist whose investigations have exposed corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood and NPR". James O'Keefe is a far-right activist that uses deceptively edited videos to attack mainstream media sources and progressive sources, and whose videos exposing corruption have been verifiably proven false, as in the case with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.

Example 2, stating "Ben Swann – Emmy Award-winning journalist" but not including any mention that he is a well-known, notable conspiracy theorist.

Example 3: stating "Stefan Molyneux – host of Freedomain Radio" but not mentioning how he is best known as a white nationalist.

3. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

I cannot find reliable, non-primary sources for the large majority of the claimed speakers at these conventions.

4. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Majority of the individuals listed fail notability requirements. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more than the nominator's opinion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Free State Project per WP:ATD. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV on the convention, but there is coverage on the Free State Project who is responsible for this convention.4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Free State Project#Annual_events as the annual conference of a relatively obscure libertarian project just doesn't seem notable. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown (3rd nomination)

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

Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS although notable at first sustained coverage died off quick. There has been no expanded reports on the incident. A crash of a heavy aircraft with fatalities under 10 has no notability in itself.

@ me in the below discussion when you comment so i can get the fastest response or see your comment ASAP. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Sudan. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a scheduled flight or a passenger flight (these are generally considered automatically notable), and it appears to have been a military flight or military-operated flight, in which case a shootdown isn't notable, it's fortunes of war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this article when it was said that this was a civilian cargo plane, but since now it is practiacally confirmed it was a military one, and since no important figures were killed, and there were no particular consequences nor continued coverage I think we Can delete it. - SignorPignolini _Talk 06:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was going to suggest a merge but I see there's already a brief, but sufficient, mention at the bottom of the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) § United Arab Emirates section. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jay D. Easy (t) 20:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. EBLDP (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This won't be kept, but the only issue with it is really that the coverage window was too close in time to the accident. Articles like this show that there may be further coverage, in which case I would have absolutely no problem restoring this article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The event has received significant in-depth coverage in secondary sources that currently justify its retention. It's too soon to determine whether the event will have sustained continued coverage or lasting effects. Sources:^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very significant event politically and also is quite a significant aviation incident. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Its-official-Chhattisgarh-renames-V-Day-as-Matru-Pitru-Diwas/articleshow/46151391.cms
^ https://www.outlookindia.com/national/parents-worship-day-after-chhattisgarh-jharkhand-to-implement-jailed-godman-asar-news-305893
^ https://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-38956151
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20131018015852/http://www.merinews.com/article/chhattisgarh-makes-parents-worship-day-a-compulsory-observance-in-schools-on-february-14/15881586.shtml%26cp
^ "Crashed IL-76 in North Darfur: Sorting through the wreckage". Centre for Information Resilience. 31 October 2024. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
^ Dubrovsky, Andrei (25 October 2024). "Mistake or planned sabotage: What is known about the death of the plane with russians on board in Sudan's Darfur?". Afrinz. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
^ Abdelaziz, Khalid; Levinson, Reade; Lebedev, Filipp (24 October 2024). "Exclusive: Plane downed in Darfur with suspected Russian crew was supplying army, rivals say". Reuters. Archived from the original on 29 October 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
^ "RETRACTED: Sudanese paramilitary mistakenly shoots down UAE cargo plane". Sudan War Monitor. 21 October 2024. Archived from the original on 29 October 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
^ "Mercenary aviation: Russian cargo planes helped both sides in Sudan's war". Sudan War Monitor. 27 October 2024. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024.

Keep: I believe this event meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines:

Significance: The incident involves a military aircraft, and any military engagements resulting in casualties often have broader implications for regional stability and/or international relations. This particular event is noteworthy given the ongoing issues Sudan is facing.
Media Coverage: There has been significant media coverage of the incident, which explains what happened in the incident thoroughly. Reliable sources have reported on the details of the event. Some citations which I easily found are here, here, here, and here that discuss the incident in detail.
Aviation Context: This incident is part of a bigger story about military planes that have accidents in war zones. Adding it to Wikipedia helps people understand the dangers and problems that military aircraft deal with. Also, I don't think heavy military aircraft, like the Il-76, involved in shoot-downs is ordinary. They do have significant information.

Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hacked. This is a significant incident with in-depth coverage. The reference to guidelines for “routine” coverage in the earlier discussion are strained. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's nothing WP:ROUTINE about this story or its coverage. Per Hacked, this article details a significant event, for which there has been WP:SIGCOV. Although the coverage seems to have died down, it think it's still too soon for deletion.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of airliner shootdown incidents per WP:ATD. Failing that, delete for failing WP:EVENTCRIT. The article has not received WP:SUSTAINED coverage no matter how many keep voters are distorting the claims to say it is. The sources just aren't there. Likewise, there is no clear source based evidence of long-term significance. Appears to be a relatively minor incident within a war.4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the article creator agrees with delete - and the argument that the incident is adequately covered in the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) article is a compelling one. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drat... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary fork of the main Sudanese War article and in of itself a nonsignificant event in a bigger war. Only the same couple of war observer sources talked about it when it first occurred with less coverage or investigation given to it elsewhere. It is unnecessary to create articles for every military shoot down in a prolonged war. Gorebath (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods

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

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present), which seems to be an appropriate place to mention this (and again, shocked it’s not already there.) However, unlike July 2023 Western Kentucky floods, there might not be enough to put in there, thus I’m not opposed to outright deletion. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present). Agreed that this fails WP:NSUSTAINED as a standalone article, but the list article allows for shorter descriptions of the rainfall records and disaster response details contained here. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

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

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so

All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67, are you still in favour of deleting the article? -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[1] Lorimer, Gordon (1915). Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Government of Bombay. p. 843.

[2] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/ranchi/government-school-students-to-worship-parents-in-jharkhand/story-mBGxvrH4HW33cOOZarLSSL.html

[3] ttps://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/madhya-pradesh-chhindwara-collector-asks-people-to-worship-their-parents-on-valentines-day/545893/

[4] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Its-official-Chhattisgarh-renames-V-Day-as-Matru-Pitru-Diwas/articleshow/46151391.cms

[5] ttps://www.outlookindia.com/national/parents-worship-day-after-chhattisgarh-jharkhand-to-implement-jailed-godman-asar-news-305893

[6] ttps://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-38956151

[7] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20131018015852/http://www.merinews.com/article/chhattisgarh-makes-parents-worship-day-a-compulsory-observance-in-schools-on-february-14/15881586.shtml%26cp

[8] "Crashed IL-76 in North Darfur: Sorting through the wreckage". Centre for Information Resilience. 31 October 2024. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.

[9] Dubrovsky, Andrei (25 October 2024). "Mistake or planned sabotage: What is known about the death of the plane with russians on board in Sudan's Darfur?". Afrinz. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.

[10] Abdelaziz, Khalid; Levinson, Reade; Lebedev, Filipp (24 October 2024). "Exclusive: Plane downed in Darfur with suspected Russian crew was supplying army, rivals say". Reuters. Archived from the original on 29 October 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.

[11] "RETRACTED: Sudanese paramilitary mistakenly shoots down UAE cargo plane". Sudan War Monitor. 21 October 2024. Archived from the original on 29 October 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.

[12] "Mercenary aviation: Russian cargo planes helped both sides in Sudan's war". Sudan War Monitor. 27 October 2024. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]