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

Siege of Naqada

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

This article appears to be, in large part, original research. A year ago, User:Applodion made the following comment on WikiProject Ancient Egypt:

Hello! Though not a member of this WikiProject, I have always been interested in Ancient Egyptian history, and got a bit confused yesterday when I stumbled on "Siege of Naqada", an article created at the start of this year. I have read a number of books covering Naqada III, and all of them have argued that we have basically no firm proof for actual military campaigns under Scorpion I (or even for the exact position/power/role of Scorpion I) despite the existence of the Theban Desert Road Survey graffito. Yet this article claims that, somehow, we know about a specific siege, the commanders, and even the numbers of the involved troops? Has there been some kind of breakthrough in archaeology or is this a case of WP:OR?

— Applodion (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks later in December, I put an original research tag on the page with a link to Applodion's comment, hoping that the page's author (or an experienced editor) could shine more light on the issue. Unfortunately, the page creator (User:Carminowe) nor their newer account User:ACarminowe have chimed in to clarify the situation. What's especially problematic is that most of the sources given in this page are offline sources, which makes the claims hard to verify.

Unlike Appolodion, I have not read books on ancient Egypt - though I have read some of Wikipedia's other material on the subject. What I've come to expect on this subject is that the historical record is patchy and requires educated guesses, with material reading like this:

Egyptologists such as Wolfgang Helck and Peter Kaplony believe that Horus Bird and Sneferka fought each other to gain the throne of Egypt. The struggles peaked in the plundering of the royal cemetery of Abydos, which was therefore abandoned. The struggle for the throne was possibly brought to an end by the founder of the 2nd dynasty, king Hotepsekhemwy. A piece of evidence supporting this theory is the Horus name of Hotepsekhemwy which means "The two powers are reconciled", and could relate to a re-unification of the Egyptian realm after a period of discord.

— Horus Bird

If Wash was a historical figure he may have been the last ruler of a Lower Egyptian dynasty based at Buto. Indeed, Narmer's fame rests on being the Upper Egyptian pharaoh to defeat the last Lower Egyptian pharaoh. However, rather than recording this historical event the palette may simply depict an allegory for Narmer's excellence and right of command, with the figure of Wash having been recruited to the task.

— Wash (pharaoh)

As you can see, the text is tentative, never spectulating past the broadest geographic detail. In contrast, Siege of Naqada tells us:

King Scorpion I mobilised his forces along the Nile at first from Thinis.
It is believed King Scorpion I himself joined his main detachment, and marched his main army through the desert highlands, heading south-east towards Naqada suggested by the graffito discovered there.[1] This was to avoid a blockade via the Nile or the interior surrounding the River Nile, for which to distract during the Campaign he had sent smaller forces including naval forces.
King Scorpion I may have outflanked Nubt's army in a matter of days and took Naqada.[1] It is unknown when it occurred, before or after, but Scorpion I killed Taurus personally in single combat.[5][6]

I can't see how the page can talk about the flanking, the movement of regiments, when the rest of ancient Egyptian history is so patchy. I really didn't want to take the move of taking this to AfD, but the original research notice has been on top of the page for a year, the author has not explained his research, and most sources are not accessible online. This seems to be the last possible way of forcing the issue. And beyond the article text, and one of the most fundamental problems here is with the title - even if there's a plausible case that Scorpion I undertook some sort of military campaign somewhere, how can we be certain that it was a siege?

As for policy-based reasoning for the AfD, I'd suggest WP:TNT (technically not policy but it's relevant here), WP:OR - or perhaps even WP:IAR. Koopinator (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the references do not non-trivially cover the claimed battle, and so notability is also a problem here. This is in addition to the fact that almost all of the article is extrapolation and original research. Somepinkdude (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Theorized raises the bar a lot and as noted there doesnt seem to be much coverage of these theories. Can always be recreated and if the author abandoned it, then so it goes. ←Metallurgist (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1935 United Kingdom heatwaves

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

I am not convinced that this is a significant weather event. I've reviewed this article and attempted to find some sources as outlined under WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately, I did not turn up much outside of one British Newspaper Archive snippet from 1935 and an WP:SPS with one line to substantiate the information within the article. The sources that were already present in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.

I have made comparisons to other articles that are listed in Category:20th-century heat waves, there are a few in this list which I believe also do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEATHER. The ones that do however have far more coverage, for example 1995 Chicago heat wave and 1911 Eastern North America heat wave. This one does not have that. I don't think there is anything that couldn't be included at List of heat waves, so I will suggest a merge or redirect, whilst keeping an open mind to anybody that comments in this AfD. I welcome any sources that are found. 11WB (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United Kingdom. 11WB (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of heat waves: The sources don't make this look like a particularly notable event, even for heat waves, and no content exists at the List of heat waves for a redirect to be appropriate. -- Recon rabbit 18:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2012 IIHF U18 Challenge Cup of Asia

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Entirely sourced by primary sources. This is a junior competition of minnow ice hockey teams. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Ice hockey, and Asia. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an international-level junior ice hockey event. It is poorly written at this time, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. English-language sources are limited, and a merger to IIHF Asia Cup is an alternative to deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not nominating this because it is "poorly written", it is because it lacks third party sources. LibStar (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning delete, but if this is being AFDed, the whole series probably should be. ←Metallurgist (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Flibirigit. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 18:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 2023 Huwara shooting. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023 Nablus incursion

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

Article is WP:REDUNDANT content of 2023 Huwara shooting, where this incursion is already covered as a related event of the shooting. RS entirely cover the incursion as an arrest operation in direct response to the shoorting. Redirect to the shooting page. Longhornsg (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Huwara shooting User:Easternsahara_{please review this and this} 22:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per nom. There are a large number of PIA articles like this that are created every time any little incident happens, which could be mentioned in any number of other articles. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ashkelon rocket attacks

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROSELINE. Redirect to Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ashkelon per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I also just added sources from The Guardian, Reuters, NBC News, Al Jazeera, and others further demonstrating notability. This was a multi-month bombing campaign between Israel and military insurgents in the Gaza strip that predates the current conflict. The article might need some improvements through editing but it meets the guidelines for inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all news reporting of what happened. WP:NOTNEWS. Longhornsg (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep but redirect wouldnt be bad. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Metallurgist: and @Gjb0zWxOb: How does this pass WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:GNG (which requires SECONDARY sources)? Contemporaneous reporting at the time of the event in the news is WP:PRIMARY. To become WP:SECONDARY coverage, sources must have distance from the event, and that doesn't seem to exist in the sources. (see https://libguides.ufv.ca/HistoricalNews which explains when news becomes secondary). I also question whether two separate rocket attacks are even necessarily the same event the way we have put them together here. This is why I thought a merge to Ashkelon could work. Best.4meter4 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im not really that fussed about it. I would like to see a lot of this PIACRUFT on both sides reduced. Its the most overly documented conflict in world history. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention having so many standalone articles treating incidents as isolated means we inevitably cover them incompletely and without the right context (on all sides). Longhornsg (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree and I commend your work on this issue. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the article about the location. Happened a decade ago, with not much for lasting effects from the attack alone... News items are about all that describe the event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Derdghaya Melkite Church airstrike

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Following WP:PAGEDECIDE, every airstrike in a broader war doesn't need its own page. This material is covered on Wikipedia on the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, to where this page should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Christianity, Israel, and Lebanon. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable event that received international coverage and reactions, similar to Church of Saint Porphyrius airstrike and Killing of Nahida and Samar Anton. There is a difference between redirecting singular airstrikes and whitewashing the bombing of an entire religious structure with civilians inside. (Which was already attacked 3 times previously per the article) Red Phoenician (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to policy, which this Afd is based on. WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Longhornsg (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as for WP:ITSIMPORTANT if you want me to be more specific, as partly stated before:

1. The article is about the destruction of a cultural and religious building which involved multiple civilian deaths.

2. It received international coverage from various news outlets with articles dedicated solely to covering the event.

3. It received statements from non-domestic leaders, Pope Francis and Cardinal Pizzaballa.

4. It recieved post event coverage.

I fail to see how the article is insignificant enough to be relegated to a redirect. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to a flurry of international press at the time of the event, there was much coverage of the church during the Christmas and Easter seasons following. There's also coverage in this journal article. Some other sources not used included Giannopoulos, Bill (October 12, 2024). "Israeli Airstrike Targets Melkite Greek Catholic Church". Greek City Times. and Frayer, Lauren (December 23, 2024). "What the Israel-Hezbollah war did to Lebanon's cultural heritage sites". NPR. This article refers to the church as heritage site. This wasn't just any building, but a historic 19th century church. I would support a move to an article on the church itself if someone cares to locate sources and go that direction. The bombing(s) could be covered in a larger article on the church itself. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and relevant, also the reasons outlined by Red Phoenician and 4meter4. JJNito197 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean ~~delete~~. We dont even have an article for this church. We need a WP:ISRAELDIDATHING essay comparable to WP:TRUMPCRUFT. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Derdghaya barely has anything on it, even in Arabic. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This just falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Red Phoenician (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it demonstrates that the place isnt notable to begin, so an attack there isnt particularly notable. This is another element of PIACRUFT. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should add that I am not opposed to merging to Derdghaya. May actually switch to redirect on that basis. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon per below. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including international sources and secondary sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is a notable event that deserved its on page. Qhairun (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon per WP:SUSTAINED, and anything needed can be merged there. No need for a separate page on this per WP:PAGEDECIDE, as there's not much here and essentially no prospect for further expansion, given that no new RS coverage is happening. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect: to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Some information could be merged, but a redirect would also be fine. Just another battle in a long war, no lasting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The war only lasted one month so I am not sure how it was "long". Lasting notability was already shown above with articles discussing the topic post-event and a journal article (provided by 4meter4) covering it which was published just 5 months ago. Red Phoenician (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Darren Bailey#Personal life. This should have been closed as speedy keep under criterion 1 (no arguments made in favour of deletion). The D in AFD has not been changed to "discussion" like most other AFDs, and a proposal to merge where deletion is not under consideration should be made on the article talk page rather than here. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Ekalaka helicopter crash

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

This accident seems to only have coverage due to the people who were on the helicopter. I am convinced at this time that the article will be a WP:PERMASTUB. The available sources discuss the family more than the accident itself. I think a merge to Darren Bailey#Personal life would suffice for this accident. 11WB (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and Montana. 11WB (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. In addition to what was outlined, I also have WP:LASTING and WP:DEPTH concerns in regards to the accident's long term relevance, and how the sources in the article more-so discuss the family involved than the actual crash. A few days ago I believed this article was a pretty standard new page review, but as pointed out by @11wallisb and Hekatlys: the article turned out to be filled with hallucinated sources, an issue I hadn't encountered before. After these sources were weeded out by @Ritchie333: (thank you!) only two truly legitimate sources remained. As already mentioned, these two sources don't necessarily demonstrate the topics long term relevance and will likely remain a WP:PERMASTUB which could just as easily be merged in to a larger article. For these reasons I believe merging is the best option. Cheers! Johnson524 23:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, if the governor himself died I'd keep but this is just his family. I don't see any lasting effects of this or any other major mentions of this since. (edit conflict) Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here some sources talking about how Montana has a lot of small plane crashes and this is another one of them and here is another talking about the helicopter being involved in a previous bird strike accident.

https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/ntsb-report-links-helicopter-to-prior-safety-scare-before-montana-crash

https://montanafreepress.org/2025/10/24/montana-small-aircraft-crash-rate-among-highest-in-the-nation/

Zaptain United (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources talking about the crash besides the family dying in it Zaptain United (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The more sources there are discussing the accident, the stronger the case for keeping the article. KTVQ is a local source, so is probably reliable. Montana Free Press as an investigative journalism source, I wouldn't question it personally. The MFP source is far stronger than the source from KTVQ, which seems to be lacking in substance. Regardless, both should be added. 11WB (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is a run-of-the-mill light helicopter crash: WP:EVENTCRIT #4 applies. There is nothing noteworthy about it other than the deaths of the non-notable family of a notable person. There is no likelihood of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, no likelihood of WP:LASTING effects. WP:USUAL applies: the article can always be recreated in the unlikely event that sufficient sustained coverage does occur or if lasting effects emerge later. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Darren Bailey#Personal life per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2023 California wildfires. Editors interested in merging can feel free to pull content from the page history. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pika Fire

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

Rather small wildfire that does not pass WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE. While this fire impacted air quality in a popular national park, SFGATE states this fire was allowed to burn for forest health because humans were not threatened, showing the Pika Fire will not have a WP:LASTING impact. A WP:BEFORE search did not show WP:CONTINUED coverage, and this appears to be a run of the mill event. Would not be opposed to a redirection to 2023 California wildfires, and would have proposed a merge if this fire met criteria for the wildfire table. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. x2step (lets talk 💌) 03:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2023 California wildfires: seems fine, one of many fires that year, does not appear more notable than others. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 California wildfires as per viable WP:ATD. Fade258 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 California wildfires.4meter4 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Were any pikas harmed? ←Metallurgist (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist, no, could not find any results about animal injuries, this was just the name of the fire. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know a "pika" was a real thing. Is this where "Pikachu" comes from? *mind blown* Iljhgtn (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 California wildfires as the best possible WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- to 2023 California wildfires is a sensible ATD, based on the articles context.@Iljhgtn: maybe the "Pikachus" here learned a new fire type move *Wink*.Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently! Or perhaps gained some water moves! Iljhgtn (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Z E T A³ 21:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central European Olympiad in Informatics

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

Nothing in the article suggests notability. BEFORE shows various mentions in passing, but I couldn't see anything that meets WP:SIGCOV and would discuss the importance of this event at any lenght. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Computing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that a decade+ history of competitions run by different countries, each with their own competition website, is not significant coverage?

Here are some other sources talking *about* the CEOI, from a quick Google search:

https://bwinf.de/aktuelles/detail/gold-bei-der-ceoi-2025/

https://www.einstieg-informatik.de/die-zentraleuropaeische-informatikolympiade-ceoi/

https://www.ocg.at/veranstaltungen/central-european-olympiad-informatics-ceoi

https://code.fandom.com/wiki/Central_European_Olympiad_in_Informatics

https://dailynewshungary.com/hungarian-team-wins-two-silver-medals-at-central-european-olympiad-in-informatics-for-students/

etc. etc.

I don't disagree that the article could be improved, but the CEOI is one of the most prestigious programming competitions in the world. I'm upset that I have to spend some of my weekend because some bureaucrat claims that it is not notable, even though the article is already full of evidence of it being a significant event over a significant number of years involving participation by several countries, as evidenced by the links to the respective websites. Yogi de (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On and by the way, the Central European Olympiad in Informatics article exists in six languages, contributed by different people. And you challenge its notability!?! Yogi de (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CEOI is a well-established competition in CS and gets quite a bit of attention in computing education research; a Google Scholar search finds plenty of papers that discuss it, with some going into detail about how it's organised, how it relates to other olympiads and how the problems are designed and marked. (There's also quite a bit of interest in these kinds of contests for AI training these days; there are a few papers in there that use CEOI's problems for this.) It is part of the wider system of European and international olympiads, and I'd be sympathetic to the idea of covering it and the country-level olympiads that feed into it in one article, but it's certainly notable and we should talk about it somewhere. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cluj: Students from 15 countries participate in the Central European Olympiad of Informatics, by Romanian news agency Agerpres. International Olympiad in Informatics in 2019 in a Czech journal, two pages are dedicated to CEOI. Central-European Olympiads in Informatics in a Hungarian journal. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions

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

Not enough WP:CORPDEPTH, non-notable company editor created article instead of going through AfC Equine-man (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Companies, Fashion, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per WP:CORP, WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. An online search in English only turned up routine coverage, WP:NEWSORGINDIA and obvious paid placement pieces like this one, pretty much like what's already cited in the article, and the usual social media. If I'm missing significant coverage in other languages, please ping me. Wikishovel (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The page for Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions should be retained on Wikipedia because the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for organizations, particularly in the context of fashion and lifestyle events in India.

1. Independent Coverage:

Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. These sources include national media outlets, fashion and lifestyle magazines, and event coverage portals. For example:

The Times of India reported on Hi Life Hyderabad and other city editions, highlighting celebrity attendance and curated designer showcases.

The Hindu and Deccan Chronicle have covered Hi Life exhibitions, emphasizing their role as major fashion and lifestyle events.

Fashion portals such as India Today Lifestyle and FashionNetwork.com have discussed Hi Life exhibitions in the context of trends, designer participation, and industry impact.

2. Verifiable Significance:

Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions is one of India’s largest curated lifestyle and fashion events, operating across multiple cities (Hyderabad, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Pune, etc.) and featuring:

Top Indian designers, brands, and jewellery artisans.

Participation of notable celebrities and influencers.

Extensive media coverage before, during, and after the events.

This level of attention demonstrates that the subject is more than a trivial or promotional entity.

3. Ongoing Influence and Industry Role:

The exhibitions have a measurable impact on the Indian fashion industry by providing a platform for emerging and established designers to showcase collections, connecting them with consumers and media. This ongoing relevance supports Wikipedia’s requirement for continued notability.

4. References and Sources:

All claims are backed by third-party, reliable sources, not press releases or primary sources alone. Examples include:

Times of India Coverage – Hi Life Hyderabad

Deccan Chronicle – Fashion Showcase Highlights

India Today – Designer and Celebrity Participation

Conclusion:

Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions satisfies Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations and events. It has received sustained, independent coverage in reputable media sources, making it a notable subject that warrants retention on the platform. Deletion would remove valuable encyclopedic content on a recognized and influential entity in India’s fashion landscape. MruThak (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The page for Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions should be retained on Wikipedia because the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for organizations, particularly in the context of fashion and lifestyle events in India.

1. Independent Coverage:

Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. These sources include national media outlets, fashion and lifestyle magazines, and event coverage portals. For example:

The Times of India reported on Hi Life Hyderabad and other city editions, highlighting celebrity attendance and curated designer showcases.

The Hindu and Deccan Chronicle have covered Hi Life exhibitions, emphasizing their role as major fashion and lifestyle events.

Fashion portals such as India Today Lifestyle and FashionNetwork.com have discussed Hi Life exhibitions in the context of trends, designer participation, and industry impact.

2. Verifiable Significance:

Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions is one of India’s largest curated lifestyle and fashion events, operating across multiple cities (Hyderabad, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Pune, etc.) and featuring:

Top Indian designers, brands, and jewellery artisans.

Participation of notable celebrities and influencers.

Extensive media coverage before, during, and after the events.

This level of attention demonstrates that the subject is more than a trivial or promotional entity.

3. Ongoing Influence and Industry Role:

The exhibitions have a measurable impact on the Indian fashion industry by providing a platform for emerging and established designers to showcase collections, connecting them with consumers and media. This ongoing relevance supports Wikipedia’s requirement for continued notability.

Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions satisfies Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations and events. It has received sustained, independent coverage in reputable media sources, making it a notable subject that warrants retention on the platform. Deletion would remove valuable encyclopedic content on a recognized and influential entity in India’s fashion landscape. MruThak (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Deb (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – References are passing mentions, unreliable, etc. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please retain. Interesting info SonaliSharma2 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)— SonaliSharma2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retain. Covers all details KaviyaRamesh (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)— KaviyaRamesh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable event. x2step (lets talk 💌) 22:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death and state funeral of Fatima Jinnah

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

I do not think that this subject merits a standalone article; it can be easily covered in the article on Fatima Jinnah. I would redirect, but it seems a most unlikely search term . TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, although it shouldn't be merged because there aren't any sources for this. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Events, and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest it be moved into a draft space (i.e Draftify) until the user can provide proper sourcing to support it. It would be difficult to find contemporary sourcing, as the Pakistani newspapers that would have covered both her death and the event don't have digital archives dating back to that period. However, I'd imagine that the historic nature of the event in Pakistani political memory warrants a proper search. I wouldn't be surprised if a trove of information exists on the subject. I'd suggest to @BritPak4709 that they look at the archives of the BBC, the New York Times, the Guardian, the Economist, and Dawn.

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at this, the content here doesn't warrant a standalone article. It's completely unsourced, with traces of original research, and most of the usable material is already covered (with better sourcing and context) in the Fatima Jinnah article. There's no indication that her death or funeral have received the kind of sustained, significant, independent coverage that would justify a separate page. Redirecting feels cleaner than draftifying, since there isn't much here that can be verified anyway. Anyone looking for information about her passing would naturally go to Fatima Jinnah, not this title. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 18:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point about overlap with the Fatima Jinnah article, but this topic does have its own angle specifically around her death and funeral. Even if it hasn't been heavily covered it still adds something. It might not be fully fleshed out yet, but drafting it could keep the door open for future work, rather than just merging it and losing the opportunity to develop it later. Redirecting might feel cleaner, but it kind of brushes aside a topic that, in time, could deserve more attention. BritPak4709 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't the place to create articles about a subject because we think someone might hypothetically want to know about it in the future.

If there isn't already existing notability in secondary sources, it shouldn't be here. Athanelar (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you’re coming from, but I think we need to look at the facts here. The event may be old, but from what I found, it still seems to have enough substance to deserve its own section.

And about the writing, just to clear things up, this is all based on what I found and how I put it together. If you need more details or references, I can share those too. BritPak4709 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BritPak4709, there are a few questions that need to be asked for us to determine if this article warrants inclusion. I'd warn @Athanelar and @ZyphorianNexus that their use of broad parameters to argue against inclusion of an event that happened more than 60 years ago is impractical and somewhat overbearing, but beyond that we need to know if there really does exist enough reputable coverage out there (even if it exists in archives or literature) to warrant its separation from the broader Fatima Jinnah article. Were you able to find any sourcing to back this up from the sources I'd suggested? Beyond this, can you confirm whether or not this was written of your own ability, and not using a large language model (e.g ChatGPT)? This will help us determine if your contributions are worth maintaining in some way.

CSGinger14 (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully I did use an AI tool to help draft and structure some parts of the content, since I’m still getting used to Wikipedia’s formatting and tone requirements. That said I am actively working on improving the article with my own research and edits. I’ll go back and review the sources you mentioned to build a stronger, reliably-sourced version. If it makes sense to merge it into the broader Fatima Jinnah article for now, I’m fine with that.

appreciate your patience I’m here to contribute constructively and I understand. BritPak4709 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your honesty @BritPak4709. Unfortunately, until you're able to back your claims with reputable citations, none of what was written here can exist either as a stand alone article or as an addition to the larger Fatima Jinnah article. I suggest to other editors (@Athanelar, @TheLongTone, @Wikieditor662, @ZyphorianNexus, @Wikishovel) that we hold this here as a draft article until they have a chance to back it up with reliable sourcing. I don't think it's practically beneficial to claim that it should be deleted wholesale and replaced with a redirect page because the coverage doesn't exist, even if WP:ONUS makes that case, as I'm almost certain publications have covered it at length, it's just that no one here making that argument cares enough to go back through 60 year old newspaper archives to prove themselves wrong. None of the claims made on the page are necessarily all that extravagant, they're just unsourced. If you feel strongly that it should be removed, I'd love to hear your case, but otherwise it seems more like open hostility to something that doesn't follow the letter of the law rather than cooperative and constructive adherence to longstanding guidelines.

Let me know what your thoughts are, but best wishes to all regardless,

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't push for outright deletion unless the page is very clearly anathema to the spirit of the project (advertising, defamation etc); in this case i think draftifying is sensible. If the contributor wants to put the work in to bring it up to scratch and submit it as an article/merge, great. If not it'll be subject to deletion eventually anyway. I'll make my !vote as a top level reply. Athanelar (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection I understand my mistake. My apologies. BritPak4709 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While draftifying does allow time to strengthen the sourcing and bring the article up to standard, I'm not totally opposed to that approach at all.

That said, the main question is whether there are enough reliable sources that cover her death in a substantial way — things like historical accounts, archival reports, or scholarly works. Whether it happened decades or even centuries ago doesn't really matter, what matters is the depth of coverage.

If the article's creator or anyone is able to find such sources, or other credible works that discuss this in meaningful detail, then draftifying could make sense so those can be properly incorporated and hopefully developed into a well written, well-sourced article. Otherwise, what's the point of the article? ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 20:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Even if it gets sourced, why does this need its own standalone article rather than being included in her main article? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as per the discussion here, with the aim to eventually merge into the main article when/if the draft is up to scratch. Athanelar (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm far from certain that an article convincingly asserting notability with proper sourcing couldn't be written, so it makes sense to send this back and give the creator time to fix the myriad issues. BritPak4709, generally speaking, if it's a concept you don't fully understand, like proper tone for a Wikipedia article, that's the absolute worst time to use an LLM, since you don't have the experience to be able to understand what the LLM does wrong. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this LLM slop per WP:TNT. It's a copyright, verifiability, and neutrality minefield. No objections to a properly researched and written article on the same topic, but the current version isn't salvageable given its provenance. pburka (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Per CoffeeCrumbs and others above recommending draftifying, there might well be enough reliable sources to expand into a separate article, but I believe that the best place to begin that process is at Fatima Jinnah#Death and Fatima Jinnah#Honours and legacy, where sources and content about this topic can receive the contributions and scrutiny of a large base of editors. If either or both of those sections ever gets big enough to WP:Split to a separate article, then by all means split.

I don't believe there's been any "open hostility" expressed here towards new editor User:BritPak4709 for their evident good faith creation of an article about a revered figure of Pakistani history, but towards the AI tools used, in an honest mistake. The crude AI tools available to us at the moment are potentially a dire threat to the integrity of Wikipedia, and open hostility towards them is entirely understandable.

@BritPak4709: warmest thanks to you for your edits here, and I look forward to seeing your future contributions to Pakistani history articles. Wikishovel (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just letting you all know, since by WP:SNOW everyone agreed to either WP:DRAFTIFY or DELETE the article, I draftified while we discuss whether the article will be deleted. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back to main space: please don't move the article until the end of the AFD discussion, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad if I wasn't supposed to. Could you clarify on why you did this? Would it not be better for it to be a draft while it's discussed whether it should be deleted? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDEQ says it better than I can: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. Since draftification is one of the options being actively considered, a premature move to draft will also confuse this discussion. Moving from main space also prevents frequent editors, especially new page patrollers, from chancing across a new article in main space and joining an AFD discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Also, for some reason your answers aren't notifying me (not even in the blue unlike every other response), I only saw it through my watchlist. Do you know why this is? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a talk page, there are section headings where you can click "subscribe" to get pinged. But AFDs are usually just one big thread, so Watchlist is all we get for now. Wikishovel (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT/WP:EVENTCRIT. Also a WP:BADFORK of Fatima Jinnah.4meter4 (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 17:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Škabrnja (1991)

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

Clearly a WP:CFORK (possibly a WP:POVFORK) of Škabrnja massacre, created by a blocked sockpuppet. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a fork. LDW5432 (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The so-called battle seems like a minor event at large. Shankargb (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of Llapushnik

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

WP:CFORK/WP:POVFORK of the longstanding article Lapušnik prison camp. Also contains possible elements of a hoax because the Kosovo Memory Book only lists one death in the village between 7 and 10 May 1998, and three deaths from 25 to 26 July, not 47 as the article claims. [1] This in itself undermines its notability and dispels any notion of a noteworthy battle having taken place here. If we were to have a separate article for every minor clash or skirmish we would have literally thousands of articles per conflict. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Morekar (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Lapušnik prison camp per WP:ATD. Some of the content in this article is solid, and not currently in the Lapušnik prison camp article. It should be preserved. Agree that we don't need two articles on essentially the same content area and this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG and there's good info that's not in the article for the camp. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav offensive on Kabash

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

Non-notable clash which touches on some of the same subject matter as Battles of Ješkovo, which was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of Ješkovo). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that there's not enough coverage and significance for a stand-alone article. --Griboski (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 20:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- merge key info to Kosovo War, if the current citations lack SIGCOV to suggest standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Tornadoes of 1998. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 15, 1998, Minnesota storms

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

Not seeing WP:LASTING coverage of this event. Could be a subsection of Tornadoes of 1998. ^EF⁵ 14:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks#1990s e.ux 16:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. e.ux 16:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. e.ux 16:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tornadoes of 1998, since it is notable enough for a section. 185.104.139.73 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t mean to double vote; the connection is very shaky. Feel free to remove one of them. 185.104.139.73 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of the copies. Left guide (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tornadoes of 1998 per WP:ATD. Like the nom, I could not find continued coverage. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#1990s where the subject is mentioned. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Late-October 1996 tornado outbreak

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

Not seeing WP:LASTING coverage of this event. ^EF⁵ 14:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage here: https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/forecasts/this-day-in-weather-history-october-26-1996-26-tornadoes-in-the-u-s-midwest ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the article you cited's usage of the same photo and caption from this article and the otherwise obscure status of this outbreak, I suspect this may be a form of circular reporting, not of facts but of notability, in that the Weather Network article might not have been written if there wasn't a Wikipedia article to go with it. Departure– (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks#1990s: - has its entry there. e.ux 16:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. e.ux 16:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. e.ux 16:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sort of lasting coverage per nom, and the scope of impact is where I wouldn't expect to find any from now. Unusually strong for Minnesota, but ultimately doesn't seem that notable. I disagree with a potential merge to the List article as that's a list of "notable" outbreaks that this page may or may not fail--no prejudice to keeping/removing existing material for this article from there--and note also how the list doesn't have concrete inclusion criteria, so this may or may not qualify to begin with. Perhaps a list to a List of Minnesota tornadoes would be appropriate, assuming such a list gets written. This discussion makes me think how many recent events we have articles for also might not have LASTING coverage, but that's neither here nor there. Departure– (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To an appropriate list of tornado outbreaks as redirects are cheap. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Eva UX. While I did find some coverage in this news article, this isn't significant coverage that would count towards WP:NEVENT and only specifies one injury. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zana ambush

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

Another piece of Gaza war cruft. An activity during a war. Lots of WP:ROUTINE coverage that it happened. It didn't change the course of the war. Already covered in full at Siege of Khan Yunis. Longhornsg (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page a year ago back when the war was less drawn out (a few months instead of two years) I made this page with the justification that it changed the frontline of the war but ultimately it’s become a small drop in the water, already covered in the siege of khan yunis article, delete The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming around, @The Great Mule of Eupatoria, and being clear-headed about this. Longhornsg (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siege of Khan Yunis, related topic which is a plausible search term with coverage at said page. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 00:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Arguments all different directions, but I agree with consolidating Gaza war cruft. I would like to know how many links in are not from the Hamas template. If few or none, a redirect is somewhat pointless. Metallurgist (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After removing it from templates, it only appears in a list of attacks, so nothing really links into it obviating the need for a redirect. Metallurgist (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, I dont oppose a redirection, I just dont see it as necessary. Metallurgist (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- any useable info to the Siege of Khan Yunis To avoid redundancies, and to improve merge target context, if any.Lorraine Crane (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ←Metallurgist (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Varanasi gang rape

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

For an event to be presumed notable on Wikipedia, it must demonstrate lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Indeed, going further, and we get most crimes[...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. This is a fairly high bar, and not one this article topic appears to pass.

Created in the week after the event was reported, but it wasn't even posted at ITN because, unfortunately, gang rapes are much too common in India and nobody could see any WP:LASTING impact.[2] Several months later, that remains true. There's been a handful of news article doubting the 19 year old's story, evidence that at least one claim may be false (which is why we don't write sensitive articles with breaking news stories), an announcement that the police stopped arresting people after new evidence emerged, and a few news stories when the SIT report was released, saying only that it couldn't rule out that a crime had occurred [3][4][5], but that's it. - Admittedly, my WP:BEFORE was hampered by the fact that that there were several gang rapes in Varanasi this year and last, (Wikipedia:ROTM) and the 2024 case kept coming up instead of the 2025 case, but I'm still not seeing sufficient, continued coverage. While Modi and a few other public figures made statements (or campaign promises) at the time, there were no mass protests, no actual change effected, and, as such, no more sources to work with. The article also has many BLP issues - the first revision was the worst, but it still presents many claims as facts in wikivoice ("[X Name][...]later threatened to circulate the footage as revenge porn."..."he raped her before leaving her in the Nadesar area"... "man identified as [Y NAME], who took her to his residence in the Hukulganj area" - some of these are taken directly from quotes attributed to the mother, and the newspapers do not state them in their own voice. I shouldn't need to explain to anybody what that's problematic.

TL:DR; Could this be notable in the future? Yes, absolutely. Is it now? The sources don't indicate so, and we are, by design, a lagging indicator of notability. If we were to have an article on this subject, it should be based on high quality, non-breaking news stories. It should be balanced, respectful of the living people whose lives were impacted by the event, and not be based on two weeks worth of breaking news coverage. I'm willing to push NEVENT a bit for events that are very likely to be notable, such as airline crashes or natural disasters, but not crimes. Let the world write the sources first, and we'll follow. Against ATDs for BLP reasons. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and India. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Orientls (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability at this moment seems highly unlikely. Agletarang (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and a complete dearth of WP:PERSISTENT or SIGCOV in reliable sources makes it impossible to support a standalone article, particularly considering the BLP implications. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news has gotten significant coverage in the Indian press including India Today, the Hindustan Times, and the Times of India/. In addition the incident has prompted an official response from Modi. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:BREAKING and WP:NOTNEWS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see WP:SIGCOV as this been nationally reported across the country of 1.4 Billion. it clearly meets the WP:GNG through significant, in-depth national coverage from numerous reliable sources like The Hindu, The Hindustan Times, and The Indian Express. It also satisfies WP:LASTING with sustained follow-up reporting on its real-world consequences, including the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the transfer of a senior IPS officer, and the PMO seeking a report on the case.Longewal (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. This is a routine crime news, especially in a country like India. Some government moves are not indication of notability. Zalaraz (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand where you're coming from, the fact that there was an investigation is expected, not a reason for notability and internal personal changes is not a LASTING impact. For that, we'd be looking for something like what happened in the Nirbhaya case: mass protests sweeping the country, serious calls for change, going to the Supreme Court- and we've got sources discussing all that. And I'm not saying those sources will never exist for this one - somebody could wake up tomorrow and start writing a book on it. But we only write articles once we've got sources, the sources just aren't there yet. And that's resulted in serious BLP issues, that could potentially negatively impact all the parties, especially the teenage girl. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BLP issues and WP:NOTNEWS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's original creator but others have contributed significantly to it. There are two issues here. One is compliance with WP:BLPCRIME with regard to names of involved people, and the other is WP:GNG of the overall event. I think the major complaint here is BLPCRIME, and I propose 1) WP:TNT to restart the article but omit all names while 2) confirming that this overall event passes GNG, and that a remake without names is welcome. The event happened in April 2025 and the last major update was the special investigation report in July. Modi the Prime Minister commented on it, which is unusual for any such case, and also this case has been in many newspapers over months. I count 3 major gang sexual assault incidents in the media, in this town, since this incident, so doing Internet search to sort the cases is a bit confusing. The two most unusual sources are the Prime Minister's statement and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report which says, "Can’t be denied that the accused committed the crime". There are other unusual media items, including the primary source police interview which secondary sources report, and various articles which share the perspective of the accused.

@GreenLipstickLesbian: You mentioned risk to the victim, whom I think is not named in any of the identified articles. Do you see a risk to the victim for this article existing if 1) she is not named and 2) the accused are not named? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged: GNG is not relevant: as an event article, NEVENT applies. An SIT report is, in fact, a good thing that a government should produce - and none of the coverage on it is anything but routine.

To answer your question, though - I think there's a risk to every party if we built sensitive articles on breaking news headlines, present unclear facts as though they are definitive, names included or otherwise. Why are you so opposed to recreating this in, say, three to five years, when the better sourcing emerges? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 16:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do agree with TNT though. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 17:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". The GNG is always relevant. Katzrockso (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNG are always preferred when determining notability, should they exist for a topic. Zalaraz (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, since per WP:N very explicitly states a topic is notable if it meets either the WP:GNG or a particular WP:SNG. Katzrockso (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says that it's presumed notable. You can overcome that presumption; for example, if the sources are weak enough that you can't build an article adhering to core PAGs. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but relates to the fact that notability doesn't guarantee an article if an article fails other Wikipedia policies like WP:NOT, not whether or not the topic is actually notable. This is also a new argument not presented in the nomination (which focuses on claims of notability I believe were adequately addressed) and not one that I think can be successful. Do you really think the "sources are weak enough" here that it isn't possible to build an article adhering to PAGs? I have a hard time believing that. Katzrockso (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not a new thing to see SIT getting formed after the crime has attracted some media attention, but that cannot be used for establishing notability. The subject fails WP:N and has failed to attract lasting coverage. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bluerasberry and the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS states that "For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage". There coverage is neither routine nor does it fall into the listed examples of routine coverage. WP:ROUTINE similarly provides no rationale for why the coverage here should be excluded. Katzrockso (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the topic meets notability or not is inconsequential compared to the BLP concern affecting all parties involved. Keeping such an article only re-victimizes the victim and portrays the accused as a criminal without a real-life conviction, which violates WP:BLPCRIME. WP:NITROGLYCERIN is the way forward here. Zalaraz (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that could be fixed by editing. WP:Deletion is not cleanup, the job of AfD is not to delete articles that have problems satisfying content guidelines, but whether the topic is notable enough to warrant a different article in any shape or form. One way to resolve your concerns about WP:BLPCRIME is just to remove all the content that violates it, not by deleting the article. WP:TNT is an essay, not a deletion rationale based in policy. Katzrockso (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to let this be my last comment here: I actually looked into fixing this, before nominating (or at least, sketching out a way this could be fixed) However, I feel that the only way the BLP issues could be surmountable is with better quality sources, further removed from the event. We don't have those yet. Removing the content that runs afoul of BLP crime is deleting the article. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another new argument not presented in the nomination nor one that I believe can be substantiated - the BLP issues pointed to in the nomination are WP:SURMOUNTABLE (referring to the contrast in voice between sources and the text of the article), but now you claim that all of the content that runs afoul of BLP crime is just about the entire article. This is a radical change in position and not one that is substantiated by a provided analysis of the article - I fail to understand how better quality sources would make a difference her with respect to the BLP crime accusation. Katzrockso (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my argument, Katzrockso - I highlighted a different set of examples about how the reporting was a bit dubious with the note which is why we don't write sensitive articles with breaking news stories). I'm sorry if that didn't come across as clear enough. If you believe the BLP problems are surmountable, then fix them. I can't see how you get over the uncertainty and the fact that there's been no lasting coverage, no impact, no decent analysis by secondary sources. If you want me to withdraw, then provide those sources. Without them, we end up with articles like Prospect Park alleged police sodomy incident and Long family murder–suicide, aka sensationalist articles that never should have been written, one of which was kept around nearly two decades longer than it should have been. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If BLP issues are to be fixed then the article will have to go, as it concerns non public figures and crime. Zalaraz (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It's WP:TOOSOON for WP:LASTING to be established as the event happened this year, and the coverage in WP:ROUTINE news cycle coverage which because they qualitative in scope are WP:PRIMARY sources and not WP:SECONDARY reporting. This type of coverage fails WP:NOTNEWS. We need WP:DIVERSE sourcing and sourcing which extends beyond normal media coverage of crimes.13:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, not news.Llwyld (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus and think that this is a discussion that probably shouldn't close as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pushing this towards keep versus no consensus as the event at least passes WP:GNG. This is not a routine event based on 23 individuals and the SIGCOV that it garnered. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mysecretgarden, I'm a little confused by this !vote, as WP:BASIC explicitly only refers to people. Could you clarify? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[ GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after 2 weeks of the AfD, the subject still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Segaton (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Does not meet the criteria at WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:DIVERSE, or WP:LASTING. 4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No one's been convicted, so it's all up in the air at this point. I see nothing wrong with recreation after any criminal trial. As it is now, this is simply a news item. It does not meet criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The argument behind all Delete !votes is some variant of "it did not happen". That is not--and has never been--a valid deletion criterion under WP:NEVENT. To wit, we have many well sourced articles on notable events that ended up being cancelled, from the 1944 Summer Olympics to APEC Chile 2019 and Expo 2023, as well as dozens of articles about cancelled elections and referenda. Similarly, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, as no evidence was presented that the article employs unverifiable speculation. Merely writing about the future is not covered by WP:CRYSTAL, as we routinely see with articles about upcoming elections or future solar eclipses.

Several valid merge targets have been proposed, but absent a P&G-based consensus against keeping the article as a standalone page, merge cannot be used as an alternative to retention.

While some of the Keeps were similarly devoid of P&G basis, others were fully anchored in our notability guidelines, leaving us with a P&G-based consensus to keep the article. However, seeing as these are recent developments, renomination in two months is allowed, by which time WP:LASTING notability can be better assessed. Or better yet, a merge proposal on the Talk page, focused on where any verified, encyclopedic content is best presented, rather than whether the event happened, is more likely to reach a fruitful consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Russia–United States Summit in Hungary

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

Article WP:STUB and WP:SOON may be moved to draft space. QalasQalas (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, Hungary, Russia, and United States of America. QalasQalas (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simply adding a {{stub}} template would have been best/most appropriate instead of a deletion request.
Its already confirmed the meeting will take place in approximately 2 weeks, the Prime Minister of Hungary has said they have already started preparing for it, and high level US and Russian officials will be meeting next week to get everything ready for the summit.
This summit is hot now and will continue to be so in the news, it's already on quite a few major news outlets.
Don't see the point of deleting an article that will just be created again a few days from now, just keep it up and allow more editors to take part in editing and improving it - it has a lot of potential to reach the same quality as the 2025 Russia–United States Summit in Alaska article. -4vryng ^talk 05:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

even if the event is canclelled or postponed for some reason - that does not require the article to be deleted. There is enough secondary sources and given the story line behind the article and what has happened it deserves to be kept. Ive seen articles with only one paragaph and nobody is asking those to get deleted they simply have the stub tag on them. -4vryng ^talk 02:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable enough to merit an article, whether or not the summit happens. If not, it will be updated accordingly. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 10:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @4vryng and @Иованъ 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:F01A:586D:C0F4:F81 (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this article is WP: TOOSOON. Disagree with the above editor - if the summit does not happen, there is nothing to update and the article should not exist. Natg 19 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @4vryng and @Иованъ Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article has been moved to 2025 Budapest Summit. Rusalkii (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait for the summit to actually happen. Hungary is landlocked and there isn't a route for Putin to get to Budapest via international waters/airspace and until there is confirmation that a country like Poland will allow Putin to fly through this is unlikely to happen. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Hungary Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has indicated they will make it happen in regards to Putin coming and going from the summit, also Putin does not need to go thru Poland to get to Hungary. -4vryng ^talk 14:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Note: I have provided references in the article how this travel can be accomplished - very unlikely anyone will stop it and escalate the current war if Putin was arrested or harmed. From article: "Solutions to the flight restriction include dispensation provided by the European Union, flying thru Poland and then Slovakia, or flying thru the Black Sea and then thru Romania."-4vryng ^talk 17:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Hungarian media reports that Bulgaria has offered to let Putin through: https://telex.hu/kulfold/2025/10/20/vlagyimir-putyin-orosz-elnok-budapest-talalkozo-bulgaria-legter-donald-trump Krmarci (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace probably will be notable but it's too early to say right now. We shouldn't blindly create articles on possible future events, but wait until they actually demonstrate notability. GNG is not yet demonstrated, and draftspace is a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: they have confirmed the event is going to happen - both the US, Russian, and Hungarian government have - but if for some reason it does not we can always correct the article at a later point. -4vryng ^talk 14:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This upcoming summit has already established clear notability, as it is being covered by reliable sources and has drawn significant attention worldwide, which justifies a standalone article. Even if it were hypothetically cancelled, the level of coverage and interest it has already generated makes it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. RitaLem (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (changed to Merge) – Content is already covered on the 2025 Budapest Summit page. With tri-party involvement, this title is also obsolete. Lf8u2 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "2025 Russia–United States Summit in Hungary" page is only a redirect to the article "2025 Budapest Summit". I think that this AfD discussion and votes concern the target article "2025 Budapest Summit". RitaLem (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RitaLem Yes, my mistake. I only revisited this because I saw that the 2025 Budapest summit is now cancelled, I'd just support a merge here. Lf8u2 (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The 20-odd references from multiple news sources make this article an obvious GNG pass. This article has also been heavily improved since the AfD started, and I wouldn't be surprised if this gets assessed as C-class. Even a stub template is not warranted at this point. Somepinkdude (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. 2409:4060:2EB0:C5C7:9C08:AE6C:33F:E551 (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it doesn't happen, the summit has already received enough sigcov. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC) Today, The Financial Times published an article dedicated to the cancellation, Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin Budapest summit axed following Moscow memo. But if the consensus is against keeping, then at least redirect it to Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)#Proposed and cancelled 2025 Budapest summit. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Comment The meeting has been cancelled. A valuable lesson on why WP:SOON is a policy and why you shouldn't create articles for everything that gets news coverage. 146.200.108.202 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sources for clarity: [6][7] Natg 19 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cancelled events exists for a reason. Many proposed events that never happened are still encyclopedically notable, and this is undoubtedly one of them. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 19:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was not on the same level as, e.g., Olympic Games not taking place because of World War I and II or the Buenos Aires 2023 World Expo being cancelled because of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Argentine financial crisis that followed. No date had been set for this meeting, and it was unclear whether one of the two participants would be able to attend because of flight restrictions and an arrest warrant out on him. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has yet to be officially cancelled, but even if it was, about as many reliable sources have been published on this would-be event as the Buenos Aires 2023 World Expo at the time the latter was written (and it still cites much fewer than this article does). The subject of the summit is the largest war in Europe since WWII. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 23:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTRUMP. Just because there is a lot of news reporting on this does not make it encyclopedic or significant. This was something that Trump "planned" but quickly walked back, and so there is nothing to report on. There hasn't even been a week of planning for this yet. If necessary, a brief summary could be merged somewhere, but unless the summit is back on (seems doubtful at this time) and Trump and Putin actually meet, this does not need its own article. Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major development in peace negotiations during a major war, confirmed by all parties involved. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 00:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even with current reports saying it's not going to happen, there is still a chance. Or, the article could be revised as an attempt at a peace conference that never materialized. That would deserve coverage on the Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war wiki page. (User Tprimosch) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprimosch (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The meeting has been scrapped: [Guardian], [NY Times]. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 19:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably not a good enough reason for deletion in the case of an event with attention like this, and consequently such a large body of sources. But thank you for the links. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 23:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the recent news that the summit had been cancelled. Later in the day, during a press conference in the Oval Office, a reporter asked Trump why he thought the Budapest summit might be a waste of time, to which Trump responded, "I didn't say it would ... you never know whats going to happen ... will be notifying you over the next two days as to what were doing." Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 05:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Keep Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Duplicate vote struck. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 15:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The event did not happen. The coverage it gained so far can be summarized in a few lines somewhere else. Segaton (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)^^[reply]
The event did not happen yet. But even if it never does, the article already employs over 100 reliable sources, more than 2025 Russia–United States Summit in Alaska, and certainly enough to pass WP:GNG. It would simply be placed in Category:Cancelled events. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 13:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding lots of references does not make an event notable, see WP:REFBOMB. Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not for "citations lacking significant coverage", "citations that verify random facts" or "citations that name-drop reliable sources", as per the policy you cited. But I wasn't counting such sources. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 16:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We already have two articles, Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)#2025 Budapest summit and United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine#April 2025 – present, where this "summit", that never even reached the planning stage, could be mentioned briefly. WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:FUTUREEVENT all apply. The NY Times writes: Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, said on Tuesday that the summit with Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin could not have been postponed because it was never really "finalized." The same NY Times article about those "next two days": The president also said he expected to have another update on his approach to Russia and Ukraine in “the next two days.” Mr. Trump will often tease an announcement in “two weeks” or a couple days, only to extend his deadline again and again. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading 2025 Budapest Summit#Cancellation rumors, which is more up-to-date. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 17:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trump has confirmed that the summit is scrapped [8]. Given its status as an event that never even entered into the planning stage, it is unlikely that any information included in this article will ever become anything more than what could already be included sufficiently in Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)#2025 Budapest summit and United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine#April 2025 – present.
Just because it allegedly passes GNG because it "employs over 100 reliable sources" doesn't mean it needs a standalone article when the other two we already have are more than sufficient to cover an event that will be barely a footnote in the grand scheme. See WP:NOPAGE RachelTensions (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. It is not scrapped, this was miscommunication by the news to the public. I have already updated the article indicating Marco Rubio and Szijjártó meeting today where they confirmed the summit is happening. Please read the article to understand what actually happened. This event is not scrapped and will happen and is currently being worked on by all three governments (USA, Russia, and Hungary). I will copy/pate the info as a convenience for everyone:

On October 22, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó met with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, D.C., where they confirmed that the summit was still ongoing, with Szijjártó stating, "The Americans have not at all abandoned the idea of a peace summit. The only question in this regard is when exactly it should take place."

-4vryng ^talk 22:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable sources refer to the event as cancelled including The Washington Post, USA Today, HuffPost, the BBC, Politico, The Guardian, etc. as well as Trump himself, in his own words, this afternoon:
“It didn’t feel like we were going to get to the place we have to get – so I canceled it"

This event is unlikely to proceed into anything of substance and we have other articles where any information could be conveyed perfectly fine without having this article sit as a corpse of an event that was created prematurely. My vote to delete stands. RachelTensions (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article to understand what happened beyond the some media saying the same thing over agin about it being cancelled? I just provided references of reliable sources that indicate this was miscommunication from the media and they they have confirmed today it is not cancelled, if you want more reliable resources wait a day or two for more media to catch on. This event is likely to proceed into a very detailed and succesful article as the event unfolds just like the 2025 Russia–United States Summit in Alaska. -4vryng ^talk 22:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll invite you to read WP:BLUDGEON RachelTensions (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are pushing this narrative that the summit is still "on". Trump's own words today are "It didn’t feel like we were going to get to the place we have to get – so I canceled it, but we’ll do it in the future". It is possible that future is in the next week or two, but Trump's own words were "I canceled it" (CNN). Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Trump only said "I canceled it" two hours ago, and because in the same sentence he said "but we’ll do it in the future". Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 00:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{reply to|Natg 19}} Not too long afterwards (on the same day to!) reuters says trump is indicating something different from rubios meeting, lol, this is like a seesaw affect, cant help but laugh sometimes, i just walked out of the house and came back and just saw this reuters article 😂 Trump has mye confused sometimes ~~~~ -4vryng ^talk 01:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you put a lot of time and effort into this article but for WP purposes this aborted event can be boiled down to the two sentences I added to Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine: On October 16, 2025, after a phone call initiated by Putin that lasted over two hours, Trump announced that he would meet Putin in Budapest to discuss ending the war and that a time and location would be set the following week.^[1]^[2] The plan was cancelled on October 21.^[2] Space4TCatHerder 🖖 15:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be boiled down to two sentences. The important thing in this case is that the sources themselves don't. Whether the article remains standalone or not (for now) depends on the whims of the remaining editors who may vote here, though right now there is no consensus for deletion or even merger. I fail to see how your summary of a USA Today article and a CNN article, neither of which reference Trump's cancellation announcement on the 22nd, would be better in those articles than a more extended paragraph from the lead + cancellation sections of this article, with appropriate edit summary. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 16:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given your statement, "it is unlikely that any information included in this article will ever become anything more than what could already be included sufficiently in Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)#2025 Budapest summit and United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine#April 2025 – present", are you voting for "Merge" or "Delete"? Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 23:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per above. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpesh Manna 2002 Can you specify which comment convinced you to support "keep"? There are a few comments "above". Segaton (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Waldenberg, Samantha (October 16, 2025). "Trump says he will meet with Putin in Budapest to discuss war in Ukraine". CNN. Retrieved October 23, 2025.
^ ^a ^b Garrison, Joey (October 21, 2025). "Trump's meeting with Putin in Budapest scrapped just days after summit was announced". USA Today. Retrieved October 23, 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svartner I see the AfD has been relisted but what are your general expectations from it? Segaton (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge with 2025 Russia–United States Summit, but I will not vote, I believe that one more week is enough for a clear consensus. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created too soon and now there is no summit. I am not aware of any article on a cancelled diplomatic summit. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created too soon. WP:CRYSTAL. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)#Proposed and cancelled 2025 Budapest summit It didn't happen and likely will not happen. Stop creating articles before an event is hard-capital C "Confirmed". Nathannah • 📮 22:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content elsewhere, per WP:CRYSTAL. Kaihsu (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing has come out of it. The article's contents are hardly notable by themselves, they were supposed to support more substantial content that will never come. This proposed summit will only receive a passing mention in the upcoming history books. Super Ψ Dro 09:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is full of interesting information that ten years from now will be very hard to find anywhere else on the internet, just because the summit never happened. Lova Falk (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook WP:CRYSTAL. A summit that never happened. Longhornsg (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Red Deer municipal election

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

Part of a string of articles on unnotable elections in Red Deer, Alberta. I haven't been able to find any sources to add to any of these articles that aren't routine local coverage, which do not suggest notability. Maybe these articles, including it's siblings regarding the 2010 election, 2013 election, and 2017 election be moved to some greater article regarding the cities elections, similar to what can be seen in articles such a as Mayoral elections in Aurora, Colorado. I just don't think the sources are there to have these meet WP:NEVENT. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Canada. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Red Deer is Alberta's third largest city, and has over 100,000 people. In my opinion, that's enough to warrant notability. It should be noted that from my experience, it's hard to find online sources from over a decade ago for cities of this size, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a municipal election in a city of this size will have WP:LASTING impact. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the arguments for keeping this are thin or are not supported in relevant policy. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NEVENT for small, passing coverage. From 2007. This ain't changing folks. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia may cover election in prose in the history section of Red Deer's article, but we should not publish excessive stats about these elections or its overwhelmingly non-notable candidates. Geschichte (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom and Iljhgtn - similar to the other 2 AfDs for 2013 and 2017 articles Asteramellus (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2007 Alberta municipal elections, a corresponding outcome was reached in the 2010 Red Deer municipal election article, so why not do that here? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For similar reasons to my statement at 2017 Red Deer municipal election. We are not an indiscriminate collection of statistics without context. I am specifically opposed to merging these articles - the main articles are already a giant collection of information with no context, and this data will inevitably just get split out again when the main article becomes "too long". MediaKyle (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three of these should have been bundled, but oh well. Red Deer I understand is a nice place and I hope to visit one day, but minor city elections arent usually notable. ←Metallurgist (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and for failing WP:EVENTCRIT. We would need to see coverage from outside of the local area to pass WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:PERSISTENCE in WP:DIVERSE sourcing to pass our notability criteria for events. Very few city/local elections are able to demonstrate the requisite sourcing.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Red Deer municipal election

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

Likely unnotable election. I could not find any sources that weren't routine local coverage, which means that this election probably fails WP:NEVENT. The sources from the legislative assembly aren't of particular concern here as they are about all municipalities in Alberta, and not just Red Deer. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Canada. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Red Deer is Alberta's third largest city, and has over 100,000 people. In my opinion, that's enough to warrant notability. It should be noted that from my experience, it's hard to find online sources from over a decade ago for cities of this size, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a municipal election in a city of this size will have WP:LASTING impact. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if better merge target emerges (see what I did there?) then please ping me. Otherwise, this fails WP:NEVENT as lacking WP:SIGCOV and the arguments above are not convincing or based in policy at all. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia may cover election in prose in the history section of Red Deer's article, but we should not publish excessive stats about these elections or its overwhelmingly non-notable candidates. Geschichte (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same reasons I noted in similar 2017 article above - It seems just routine temporary coverage for local election and don't think it meets WP:NEVENT for a standalone article. Asteramellus (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2013 Alberta municipal elections, a corresponding outcome was reached in the 2010 Red Deer municipal election article. I have suggested that to the 2007 article. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For similar reasons to my statement at 2017 Red Deer municipal election. We are not an indiscriminate collection of statistics without context. I am specifically opposed to merging these articles - the main articles are already a giant collection of information with no context, and this data will inevitably just get split out again when the main article becomes "too long". MediaKyle (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three of these should have been bundled, but oh well. Red Deer I understand is a nice place and I hope to visit one day, but minor city elections arent usually notable. ←Metallurgist (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and for failing WP:EVENTCRIT. We would need to see coverage from outside of the local area to pass WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:PERSISTENCE in WP:DIVERSE sourcing to pass our notability criteria for events. Very few city/local elections are able to demonstrate the requisite sourcing.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Red Deer municipal election

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

Likely unnotable election. I could not find any sources that weren't routine local coverage, which means that this election probably fails WP:NEVENT. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Canada. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator. These municipal election articles are getting out of hand... We are not an indiscriminate collection of election results, there has to be something to say about the election - I sincerely doubt that the 2017 Red Deer municipal election has ever been the subject of a political science study. MediaKyle (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Red Deer is Alberta's third largest city, and has over 100,000 people. In my opinion, that's enough to warrant notability. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is separate from 2017 Alberta municipal elections like Calgary and Edmonton. Moondragon21 (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a municipal election in a city of this size will have WP:LASTING impact. Yes, it's a bit run-of-the-mill, but most municipal elections are. But it elected the mayor of the city and can be presumed notable on that basis. I strongly disagree with the above delete !vote: not everything has to be some extraordinary case that has been the subject of detailed scholarship. Deleting this article will just leave readers floundering navigation-wise as well. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. If every local election has its own page, there isn't really much of a limiting principle there. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned, Red Deer is Alberta's third largest city and removing it's election results from wikipedia in this manner will make them significantly more inaccessible. I do not think it is fair to discriminate against cities because academics have not chosen to write about their election results. Jamsohannson5 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if better merge target emerges (see what I did there?) then please ping me. Otherwise, this fails WP:NEVENT as lacking WP:SIGCOV and the arguments above are not convincing or based in policy at all. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia may cover election in prose in the history section of Red Deer's article, but we should not publish excessive stats about these elections or its overwhelmingly non-notable candidates. Geschichte (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom and other reasons noted above - WP:SIGCOV and WP:NEVENT. It just seems some data dump from official website - who won by what numbers and %, no real encyclopedic value. Asteramellus (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a long list of percentages and names, no analysis. I don't see any sources that show this was a notable election in the history of the city, just another routine election that happens every few years, as normal. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a first choice (Red Deer has crossed the 100k population mark in 2016, a good reference point for a sizeable city). Failing that, Merge to 2017 Alberta municipal elections. A corresponding outcome was reached in the 2010 Red Deer municipal election article, and as with the 2013 and 2007 articles this is a viable ATD. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging a bunch of statistics with no context into an article which is already a very large collection of statistics with no context. It will inevitably just be split out again when the article gets "too long". I'm unsure that 2017 Alberta municipal elections would survive its own AfD. MediaKyle (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three of these should have been bundled, but oh well. Red Deer I understand is a nice place and I hope to visit one day, but minor city elections arent usually notable. ←Metallurgist (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and for failing WP:EVENTCRIT. We would need to see coverage from outside of the local area to pass WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:PERSISTENCE in WP:DIVERSE sourcing to pass our notability criteria for events. Very few city/local elections are able to demonstrate the requisite sourcing.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any agreement on this, and the opinions to delete or keep the article pretty much cancel each other out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Hamas executions

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

The article is a case of WP:RECENTISM, imo, and does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG. There is no significant/independent/reliable secondary coverage establishing enduring notability for the topic by its lonesome. All references are recent news reports and primary sources related to ongoing events, which fall under WP:NOTNEWS and do not constitute sustained, in-depth coverage. Additionally, the topic substantially overlaps with existing articles such as Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip, making this a WP:POVFORK created to emphasise a particular viewpoint rather than to provide distinct encyclopedic value. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Palestine. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was originally going to say Merge to Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip, but the creator of this article has already added coverage of the topic there, so a merge is now unnecessary. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think merging this stub into the page Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip would be sufficient enough for this topic. This page also fails WP:NOTNEWS Filmssssssssssss (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an elaboration of the section in the Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip article. It should stand out as an event on its own, for several reasons: Hamas is violating the Gaza peace plan. It is killing its own people, how are already defined as under: Genocide. it's an act violating human rights. It has received global news coverage to stand out on its own. Deleting such an event, won't really make it go away. ShoBDin (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a fairly explicit admission that you are trying to right great wrongs. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is trying to make the event go away some here just don't think it merits an article. GothicGolem29 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to what @GothicGolem29 says, removing this article wouldn't make it go away (and nor is that the purpose of the AfD), we cover it in Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip already. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It is Palestinian law enforcement carrying out killings citing concerns related to crime, looting, lawlessness. It has also been claimed that those executed are members of Israeli-Back proxies/informants (which is likely considering how many groups there are and how desperate some people can get during wartime). KashanAbbas (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with ShoBDin. Furthermore, the article is no longer a stub. - Hu753 (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has plenty of sources and is no longer a stub sources are from CNN, the Guardian, and the New York Times all strong secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep important article with plenty of WP:SIGCOV to pass beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Could continue to be built out too as the year is not over yet, but even without anything additional, it passes WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Expanding the article with irrelevant detail doesn't change that. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article includes multiple reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV So it is notable enough to remain an article. GothicGolem29 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it could use a judicious copy editing, there is significant coverage in the article. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to easily meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. It has coverage from The Guardian, CNN, ABC News, The New York Times and much more. Might be better to improve the article through editing as a WP:ATD. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POVFORK. We already have a page that covers this topic specifically. In fact we have two. If you look at the first page, there are sub-headings for prior executions too. None of them have their own pages, as WP:NOTNEWS applies, there is no sustained secondary source coverage warranting it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POVFORK Laura240406 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep, but should be renamed. This is part of the broader wave of Hamas's bloody crackdown on its rivals in Gaza after the ceasefire, which has received secondary coverage in the New York Times, Times of Israel, Haaretz, Washington Post, Snopes, and more. Longhornsg (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very well reported and talked about. Does need a better and more exact title. JaxsonR (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Danger for the whole peace process in 2025 comes from this topic. The article needs expansion. TaBaZzz (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if it passes notability, the main part of this article is biased POV content that is remarkably uninformative (The page Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip explains all the encyclopedic information here in two sentences). This article is clearly a POV fork. Somepinkdude (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 110 and 135 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't seem appropriate to both claim that the topic is too recent (WP:RECENTISM)) and that it does not constitute sustained, in-depth coverage (WP:NOTNEWS). I submit that it's also a misreading of WP:NOTNEWS, which in fact says, "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Keep and see whether this topic has long-lasting implications. Coining (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POVFORK. Can be merged with Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip or Arrow Unit. KashanAbbas (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article should not be moved to Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip, since by definition, capital punishment exclusively follows due process for execution. This event is about an extrajudicial killings, and neither extrajudicial killings nor summary execution are considered capital punishment since neither follow a legal process. Article follows guidelines for WP:NOTNEWS and needs work to maintain WP:NPOV. Relspas (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Raskolnikov, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POVFORK. A few of the arguments in here seem to be WP:RGWy as well. I do agree that while technically notable, there's an extreme amount of duplication in other articles and I don't see something as specific as "2025 Executions" being able to add enough additional context to warrant being a WP:SPINOFF. If you were to just remove the date, you would just be left with Hamas Executions, which again, already covered. There's nothing that differentiates what has happened 2025 substantially enough to overcome WP:NOTNEWS. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PAGEDECIDE I don't think this topic warrants its own page. Most of this page is reactions. The topic is already covered in Capital Punishment in the Gaza Strip. Rainsage (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable. Merging this to capital punishment in Gaza is silly as this is a distinctly notable event, especially in light of the claims and rhetoric the last two years. It certainly received substantial coverage and stands out. ←Metallurgist (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since it’s covered in Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip already. If for whatever reason this is kept, I think that the article should be renamed to “2025 Executions in Gaza” since Hamas aren’t the only ones who did this (note: I was notified about this AfD on my talk page) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is preposterous that this article is being subjected to a deletion discussion. It cites several "generally reliable" sources, such as Wall Street Journal, The Times of Israel, CNN, The Guardian, etc. Invoking the WP:NOTNEWS policy here holds no ground. The subject of this article is not a case of transient "routine news coverage", it qualifies the parameters of WP:GNG and is timeless in nature, simply because of the gravity of the subject matter covered. It is also not insubstantial enough for a merge. Kvinnen (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question out of interest, if invoking the WP:NOTNEWS policy did hold ground in this case, in your view, in what ways would the article look different? Anyone else is welcome to address this too. I'm wondering whether it is worth citing WP:NOTNEWS in WP:ARBPIA related discussions. The guideline does not appear to be applied to content in PIA in practice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs help in terms of improvement of tone as an editor said above. This is not an example of a passing event which per Wikipedia does not merit a standalone article. The Hamas executions have been covered by numerous independent and reliable sources which further adds credence to the fact that is a major series of incidents with international ramifications. The party that performed the executions in question is also notable by Wikipedia's standards. So I'm not sure how the the subject of this article can possibly be categorised as "routine news"? "Routine" is how we are going to label executions conducted by a violent nationalist group? Kvinnen (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because we already have information on that "violent nationalist group" elsewhere covering this exact same topic. IMO, this is excessive duplication, and this narrow scope isn't standalone notable enough to warrant their own article, but most certainly belongs as a paragraph or two in other articles. "in 2025 yada yada" DarmaniLink (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Given the coverage this has generated, this is notable enough for it's own article rather than just being a paragraph or two in another article. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coining's point that WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS are contradictory, multiple editors noting that this handily meets WP:GNG, and echoing Relspas's remark that these killings are really not "capital punshiments." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourced entirely to current event reporting which is WP:PRIMARY sourcing. Time and distance are required from an event for sources to become WP:SECONDARY. As such this fails WP:GNG for lack of SECONDARY coverage which is why WP:NOTNEWS is prescient. Also fails WP:EVENTCRIT for this reason. It's WP:TOOSOON for secondary coverage to exist.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Galwan

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

The title "Battle of Galwan" seems made up. A 30-minute conflict where a poorly supplied post got annihilated is hardly worth a Wikipedia page. There are no reliable sources on the topic except for a couple of web stories. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, China, and India. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original page stated the battle took place in "July 1962" which was way before Sino-Indian War and was commanded by "Col. BS Babu" who was born in 1983 and KIA in 2020, which did appear to be made up. Its frivolous and hallucinating nature encouraged me to make the edition,

But I have to

Disagree with the statement that there are no reliable sources on the topic. On the contrary, there are, by both Chinese and Indian side and are generally consistent with each other (surprisingly).

So while I

Agree the page SHOULD BE deleted, I also believe ? Maybe creating a new page of Battle of Aksai Chin which covers all the Chinese offensives (Galwan, DBO, Shyok, Pangong Tso etc.) between 20 to 25 October 1962 in Aksai Chin, can be considered. As collectively, they are definitely worth a page due to its scale. Dan3031949 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Galwan River page already has two sections on the 1962 standoff as well as the 1962 war. Some more details can be added there if necessary. The minute details that are currently being put into this page are not encyclopaedic. Military enthusiasts can write web stories but they cannot go into an encyclopedia. I also don't see why new pages are necessary when 1962 Sino-Indian War already exists but hasn't been touched in years! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please use the standard code for airing your argument, Keep, Delete, Redirect, etc., with "Agree" and "Disagree" it's not always clear how that relates to our standard outcome phrases.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poorly sourced. The absence of any RS alone is enough reason to delete. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only there are notability issues but the page is also suffering from WP:OR. Shankargb (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Ram Mandir attack

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

The article details a minor event which occurred two decades ago, and which has completely failed WP:LASTING. It resulted in no notable retrospectives, no policy analyses, no security reforms, no social or political shifts, no legal precedent, and in general no lasting consequences. Furthermore, the article has just a single source, entirely unsourced sections and significant issues with WP:V. For more than a decade, the article had another source, that being a WP:HOAX source which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The article has had WP:V issues since its conception but has not been improved at all. The state of the article in 2006 and today is indistinguishable. It should be deleted. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Islam, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. jolielover♥talk 14:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Firearms, History, Law, Military, Politics, Software, Internet, Computing, and Religion. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Little to no lasting impact of this incident, the coverage is similarly lacking. Zalaraz (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some sources, contemporary and later follow-ups:
- PTI, via the Times of India: LeT main suspect in Ayodhya attack (2005)
- Frontline: Shades of LeT (2005)
- India Today: Ayodhya terror attack: India wakes up to clear and present danger to its civil society (2005)
- PTI, via The Hindu: 2005 Ayodhya terror attack: four get life term, one acquitted (2019)
- Indian Express: 2005 Ayodhya terror attack case: Not happy, want govt to intervene, says victim’s family (2019)
- Hindustan Times: HC grants conditional bail to 4 men in 2005 Ayodhya terror attack case (2023)
This is just what came up on a quick Google search, I'm sure there's more out there. The nominator should have done a thorough search for sources before nominating the article. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some international sources:
- The Guardian: Gunmen storm disputed religious site in India (2005)
- The Washington Post: Attackers Storm Temple Complex in India (2005)
- Los Angeles Times: 5 Attackers Slain at Indian Holy Site Claimed by Hindus, Muslims (2005)
- Al Jazeera: Police kill assailants at India holy site (2005)
- NBC News: 6 attackers die in raid on Hindu shrine in India (2005)
TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The incident itself is not notable, just showing recent case updates for the accused won't suffice. Zalaraz (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had already reviewed those sources prior to nominating the article. WP:LASTING has little to do with the sourcing of a topic, it instead deals with enduring significance. It appears you may be confusing it with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The Wikipedia policy page for WP:LASTING states "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." As stated above, the attack had no lasting significance, leading to no major social, political, or legal effect. Simply put, it was a minor attack with no lasting consequence, and as such, does not pass WP:NEVENT. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, as rightly stated by Zalaraz, much of your given sourcing is about court updates which do not prove notability for the incident itself, especially for a country like India where court cases of even the most minor disputes can last several years, if not decades. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though you heavily imply it, the notability of an event does not hinge on it having a "lasting" impact in the sense you're insisting on; that's just one aspect of one of the five criteria listed on WP:NEVENT. Another is very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. The attack on the Ram Janmabhoomi complex (and that's not a "completely different location" as you state in an edit summary) was a big deal when it happened, as is clear from the sources, and is still remembered two decades later, after the inauguration of the Janmabhoomi temple. See these three retrospectives in Hindi sources, one notes a special security cordon on the anniversary of the attack:
The Lallantop: साल 2005 का वो आतंकी हमला, जब अयोध्या में राम मंदिर पर दहशतगर्दों ने हथगोले फेंके थे (2024)
News18: 5 जुलाई 2005, याद है न ये तारीख, जब राम मंदिर पर हमला करने आए थे आतंकवादी... मुख्य पुजारी ने बताई हमले की एक-एक बात (2024)
Amarujala: 2005 में आज के दिन ही राम मंदिर पर हुआ था आतंकी हमला, बरसी पर अयोध्या में बना विशेष सुरक्षा घेरा (2025).
TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING is not simply "one aspect of one of the five criteria listed on WP:NEVENT", as you state, inaccurately so. It is a core WP:NEVENT inclusion criteria, perhaps its most important. the policy page for NEVENT states " A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." As stated above by me as well as by other editors, the event had absolutely no lasting, historical significance. It was a one-off minor incident. The new three sources provided by you are also little known and regional in scope, and they also include a Godi media source (News18), which is no longer seen as serious for reliability across Wikipedia. I would like to remind you, once again, to read WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what world is an armed attack on a religious complex by multiple gunmen carrying rifles and throwing hand granades a "minor incident"? Unfortunately, attacks like this really were a very common occurrence during the UPA era, so it can all blend together, (Personal attack removed). Anyway, these "regional sources" are read and viewed by upto hundreds of millions of people in India, and your assessment of the bias or leanings of the sources does not impact their reliability and usability for assessing notability. I have added a few non-Indian sources to my comment above. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not doing anything to prove the notability of the incident nor do any of your sources help in proving that they had a lasting impact/historical significance. Your personal opinion about what classifies as a major incident does not change it. You should strike "you should nonetheless try to maintain a steady grip on reality and not minimise horrendous terror attacks. " because I think it amounts to a personal attack on EarthDude. Zalaraz (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was minor in that it had no lasting consequence. Please, let's not engage in WP:JUSTNOTABLE. For instance, from 2015 to 2018, over 100 attacks were conducted by cow vigilantes, leading to the deaths of 44 people and injuries to almost 300 in total, according to a report by the Human Rights Watch. Should we make an entirely separate Wikipedia article for each and every single one of those attacks? Also, you are again ignoring WP:LASTING. All the new sources you added are from 2005, and none of them assess the historical significance of the attack in the coming years and decades. I am going to have to bring up WP:NOTNEWS once again, as you did not seem to understand it the earlier two times I brought it up. Lastly, you better strike that WP:PERSONALATTACK against me. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LASTING. Orientls (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TryKid. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited by him suggests that the subject clearly satisfies the #2 criterion of WP:NEVENT, which mentions "or were very widely covered in diverse sources". Although it fails in the #1 criteria of WP:NEVENT owing to no proper WP:LASTING, this terror attack did play - a not very significant, but considerable role in the Ram Mandir Controversy over the past few years. Overall, seems just borderline enough for the article to save itself. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not simply WP:LASTING that the 2005 Ram Mandir attack fails. The incident also fails WP:GEOSCOPE, another inclusion criteria under WP:NEVENT, which states, "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." GEOSCOPE further adds, "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." The WP:NEVENT inclusion criteria are not something to selectively choose, applying some criteria while ignoring others that the article does not meet. By definition, a criterion is something that should be fully satisfied by an article’s subject, something this specific case fails to do. We simply cannot say, "this article fails this criterion but should remain in the mainspace because it is WP:JUSTNOTABLE." — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LASTING. Has all of the problems mention in the multiple issues template. I also agree with the comments by EarthDude and the others commenting on issues with the article and deficiencies under other categories such as GEOSCOPe and NEVENT. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Edit: I am persuaded to step back from my comment about LASTING, by the comments and the apparent inclusion of similar events in the general article. I am still concerned about the other points made in the template. Nonetheless, I suppose this "weakens" my delete comment to some extent. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per TryKid's arguments. I am also seeing a misunderstanding of WP:NEVENT in the nom, (Personal attack removed). A terrorist attack is not your routine run-of-the-mill crime, especially not when it receives as long-term coverage as this one has. The attack is also regularly memorialized even in sources from 2024, 2025 (as apparent from TryKid's links), i.e. has had a lasting impact on people's memory, which means it certainly passes WP:LASTING as well. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to see that two of the three arguing for keeping the article had to resort to making WP:PERSONALATTACKS. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was noting from experience. Please do not remove or edit my comments unilaterally without seeking an explanation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EarthDude (talk · contribs), it seems very inappropriate to remove UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs)'s comment, and when it was reverted, edit it with what looks like a WP:ASPERSION. Nothing in UnpetitproleX's comment read as a personal attack, and this seems like gaming the system. wound theology ◈ 15:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A minor attack that received some coverage when it happened but barely anything afterwards, recent news relating to legal matters of the suspects is routine and does not contribute to the notability of the event. There hasn't been sustained long term coverage and impact was short lived. Undoubtedly fails WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:LASTING. There is no long term coverage for this event in reliable sources, if WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources are excluded, I would expect coverage from the actual reliable sources if the article is supposed to be kept. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 11:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that there was initial coverage, just like there is for 100s of other similar incidents. However, there is no recent significant coverage about the subject from independent sources as mentioned above. That establishes the case for deletion. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited in the article show coverage spanning 2005 to 2019. That isn't just "initial". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two comments from non-ECP editors were removed (first, second) under the assertion that this article is covered by the restrictions on Indian military history articles. This seems pretty dubious even "broadly construed", but I'll leave it to noting the removals here. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of non-ECP comments by other editors is completely in line with WP:CT/IMH, which dictates that all Wikipedia content related to Indian military history, broadly construed, is under extended-confirmed restricted. This article, based upon a terrorist attack, is of course related to military history. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Terrorism in India where there is already a subsection. No reason we can't include this content there.4meter4 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the span of years in the extensive coverage cited above, arguments based on WP:LASTING seem invalid. The coverage isn't restricted to just Indian press either. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite surprising to see an administrator get confused between guidelines. WP:LASTING refers to whether the subject event in question led to anything major as a consequence. What you mean to refer to is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE which has already been shown to be nothing more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of legal matters and not of the incident itself. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable event as clear from the scope of sourcing so far. Either way, as described above, a description at Terrorism in India#2005 Ayodhya attacks already exists. There is no further need to provide any coverage. Wisher08 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - As others have said, this topic is not notable now as it has failed to meet WP:LASTING. Redirecting/merging (whatever there is) to Terrorism in India#2005 Ayodhya attacks seems to be best course of action here. Chronos.Zx (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TryKid and Anachronist: the international coverage cited above over the years since the event indicates WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV are met. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly there was significant in-depth coverage by reliable sources of this at the time. This can be verified by looking at the results of a news search or by looking at the many news citations provided by TryKid above. But it is also clear that the attack had a lasting real-world impact - for example Newsweek 23 Jan 2024, as well as the sustained coverage of legal action and protests by relatives of victims shown by the news citations posted by TryKid above. I do not think that redirecting to Terrorism in India#2005 Ayodhya attacks is appropriate because the format of that article is to have a short uncited summary and a link to the main article on each attack; so unless you are going to restructure that article "merging" to that article would be result in the merged content being deleted as WP:UNDUE for the Terrorism in India article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs some cleanup. I find it disconcerting that terrorist attacks in the Global South are frequently considered not notable, when we are trying to rectify issues with coverage of the global south. This isnt directed at any participants here, but I think its important to keep in mind that what seems less notable in "the West" and Global North does not make it not notable. Metallurgist (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Terrorism in India#2005 Ayodhya attacks. I agree these incidents are not uncommon, and it will need a lot better sourcing than what we have so far. Lorstaking (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found this source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-ram-temple-terror-attack-hand-grenades-suspect-abdul-rehman-pakistan-isi-links-my-child-is-innocent-mother-of-man-accused-of-plotting-ayodhya-7845944 and this: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/cops-seize-hand-grenades-from-haryana-teen-planned-to-attack-ram-temple-sources-2688645-2025-03-04 in one of the articles it mentions that this was coordinated with the State of Pakistan so I think that warrants a keep. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these two sources refer to the 2005 attack, but rather to a completely separate 2025 attack plot. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with TryKid's. Mag2k (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERX. Zalaraz (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge/Redirect to Terrorism in India#2005 Ayodhya attacks: Neither significant nor a precedent or catalyst for anything else. The updates and announcements regarding the case are WP:ROUTINE and the sources added by editors after the nomination are of the same nature. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not ready to close this now as "No consensus" but the arguments of participants has changed over the past two weeks. Right now, I don't see enough support for Keep or for Delete alone to close it on one of those options so maybe editors advocating one of those positions can get behind a reasonable ATD instead and we can gather a consensus here. I'm not making an argument for any outcome, my role as closer is simply to assess what might be the consensus coming out of the entire discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per arguments made by Trykid. Also meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That requirement has been met in this case, however, with coverage spanning years. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been stated time and time again, the event does not pass WP:LASTING and WP:ROUTINE coverage is not the same as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023, 2019 and Indian Express 2019 articles are routine updates about the case rather than the original event and two of them are unbylined. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable attack and notable once is notable always as long as WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks Liz for your always being even handed and neutral in your comments for your relists. You're great. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, if that was the case then most criminal incidents would merit an article. Subject specific notability guideline (WP:NEVENT) demands sustained coverage for an event to be notable. Zalaraz (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been demonstrated already, the coverage has spanned many years. If that isn't "sustained", then what is? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing WP:LASTING with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The event led to absolutely nothing of major significance and is thus not notable. Furthermore, much of the coverage that has "spanned years" has been WP:ROUTINE. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trykid. wound theology ◈

WP:PERX. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trykid made a substantial argument and none of the responses have held up against it in my opinion. WP:PERX is an essay, not a policy. EarthDude (talk · contribs), please do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. You have responded to nearly every single comment here, and much of it seems like WP:WIKILAWYERing at best. wound theology ◈ 06:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes EarthDude, you have made half the entire comments to this page and added over one third of the text ([9]); that's classic WP:BLUDGEONing. Suggest you step back from the discussion ASAP. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made "half of the comments on this page". What you're referring to are not comments but edits, most of which involved fixing some typos in my comments, adding the discussion to deletion-sorting lists so others could participate, or removing non-ECP comments per WP:CT/IMH. Claiming that I’ve been bludgeoning when I’ve responded to only some of the comments, mostly to clarify misunderstood guidelines and policies, address source misrepresentations, or respond to personal attacks, is absurd. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have responded to over half of the comments labelled keep, and per the linked utility, added over 1/3rd of the text on this page. That is classic WP:BLUDGEONing. Please read WP:BLUDGEON, which states plainly: If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. You fit both of these criteria. wound theology ◈ 11:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, had received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus meets WP:GNG. If deletion is consensus, then content should be merged as suggested by others into a relevant article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene. I was content to give a simple WP:PERX (which is not actually against policy), but since there is substantial "discussion" going on above, including at least one case of an entire comment being removed for a percieved personal attack (which is flimsy at best), I'll make a beefy response as to why I voted Keep:

WP:NOTABLE. Terrorist attacks in which multiple people died, and had substantial coverage (as shown by Trykid), are inherently notable events.
WP:LASTING. I have seen no substantial argument as to why this attack did not have lasting effects, broadly construed. As UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs) noted, in a comment that was intially removed entirely (!) by an opposing editor, [a] terrorist attack is not your routine run-of-the-mill crime and it has been memorialized even in sources from 2024, 2025 [...] i.e. has had a lasting impact on people's memory.
WP:PAPER. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, and thus I'm partial to ignoring the very weak arguments invoking somewhat subjective interpretations of (e.g.) WP:GEOSCOPE.

In short, there's no solid reasoning for deleting the article. wound theology ◈ 06:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a nationally significant terrorist attack, not a routine incident. Notable per WP:EVENT. Morekar (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While admittedly the reuse, review, rehash era of media publications is in full swing, looking at the links above ~~dopoint~~ do indicate an event of significant and lasting impact. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International reactions to the Rohingya genocide without prejudice against a selective merge. While no one specifically !voted "Redirect", the only valid objection to the proposed merger was that the encyclopedic content was already present in the target, which implies a Redirect as the natural ATD. Anyone who believes the redirect should be deleted is welcome to take this to RfD, where the threshold for retention is much lower. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March for Arakan

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

Does not passes WP:GNG, article has no notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. Also lack of international sources, only local sources. WinKyaw (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. WinKyaw (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Protests are largely notable because they have lasting political impacts. The article does not provide primary original reporting, is about an event that is not routine.

This event may not have a proper name, but it did receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as RTV [10], PBS [11] and Al Jazeera [12]. Katzrockso (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources of PBS & Al Jazeera is totally irrelevant to this protest, this protest is not even mentioned in their article. They have no connection to this protest. Your reply is illogical. Please read WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. This does not have any significant notability and no lasting political impact. RTV is a local source. WinKyaw (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in stating that they don't mention the same protest that is narrowly identified by the article. I was suggesting in my initial comment that the protests initiated on the date 25 August 2025 are notable, as they were covered by several WP:RS, both in Dhaka (as noted in Bangladeshi sources) and in camps in Cox's Bazar (as noted in international media) and that the topic of the article was inappropriately narrow.

There is no policy basis for the claim that a topic must have sources from international news media. Katzrockso (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTABLE, significant coverage Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: briefly to [13], this is a continuation of the gradual notice on the international stage of the situation, but I don't see the protest as being notable all by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Changed to Delete (see comment below relist) - the sources on this protest are mostly WP:ROUTINE. Sources 1 through 4 are reliable but they are about the Rohingya genocide not this march. The remaining sources do cover the march but they all clearly refer to "March for Rohingya" (মার্চ ফর রোহিঙ্গা) or "Rohingya Solidarity Day", providing day-of reporting and some context. I could not find a single article or publication since September that even mentions this march.

Ultimately it is a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. As written, the article gives undue coverage arguable promoting the declared goals of the Bangladesh People's Coalition for Rohingya Rights- an organisation without much notability.

This article should be deleted, but the coverage of the protest was covered enough to put in other articles. At the very least, if this is kept it should be retitled to match one of the names actually used in the sources. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned "This article should be deleted" in your 2nd last line but voted for a merge without specifying which article. Please be precise whether merge or delete. WinKyaw (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"this article" as in the March for Arakan article should be deleted and its contents as relevant merged into other preexisting articles. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Are those editors arguing for a Merge suggesting International reactions to the Rohingya genocide as the target article being proposed? You need your suggestions to be clear and specific.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh protest routinely against their persecution in Myanmar; I don't see lasting notability per WP:EVENT. What makes this event more notable than, for example, the same protests held last year? (25 August being the anniversary of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army attacks in 2017 which prompted the Myanmar military's crackdown in the region) I think mentions of this annual protest could be added to Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh or elsewhere, but I don't think the 2025 observance was anything particularly special. Further, I don't think this particular protest is the primary topic of "March for Arakan"; there was a March for Arakan protest in 2016 by ethnic Rakhine in Myanmar as well. Making it a redirect is therefore also inappropriate, in my opinion. Yue🌙 00:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT/WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is from a brief window in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle. No WP:LASTING impact or coverage that demonstrates WP:DIVERSE/WP:PERSISTENCE. The topic is already sufficiently covered at the proposed merge target (International reactions to the Rohingya genocide). Anything more there would be WP:UNDUE as this is a very minor event. No redirect is needed as the title isn't really attached to this event (ie we had to give it a name), and it isn't a likely search term.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Strong arguments for Keep, Merge and Delete, no consensus here yet. Maybe a review of sources would help here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: seeing as it's getting relisted- I think the consensus is towards deletion as I haven't seen any refutation of the arguments for deletion. Of course I already suggested a merge of relevant content, but I'm going to change that to a flat delete as others have made the point that the title for this article is likely WP:OR and is not a search term worth redirecting to another article. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and the subject does not meet WP:EVENT. I also want to question the AfD closure by User:Liz. The article was relisted even though most of the strong arguments for deletion came from very experienced editors, while the two “keep” votes were brief and lacked detail. The consensus for deletion was quite clear, so I don’t understand why it needed to be relisted again and again. Something is real. Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_conflict this is referring to a large demonstration in Bangladesh that showed solidarity with the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it is a protest that happened, but does there need to be a redirect target to March for Arakan and merging? The protest itself was not called March for Arakan by any of the sources. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NotNews applies. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Z E T A³ 15:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025 El Segundo fire

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

"fire was soon contained", "no evacuations", "not affected", ... fails WP:NEVENT. Fram (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. Fram (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

dom 08:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fifth of all motor vehicle fuel and 40% of the jet fuel consumed in Southern California. Not all industrial accidents require bodies. kencf0618 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth waiting a few days to see if this gets sustained coverage though. -- Sohom (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sohom, wait a few days, and if it doesn't get much more media coverage, then delete. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In addition to there being no consensus yet, several participants have requested more time to see how this pans out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 15:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's been quite a few days at this point and the event has garnered significant coverage. CalMatters and congressional offices point to the Chemical Safety Board being de-funded as the root cause [14] [15] and it appears that people are starting to ask questions about why this happened regardless of government oversight [16] [17]. Coverage has lasted beyond one news cycle and the event was initially widely covered by national and international sources, and thus likely meets WP:NEVENT.

. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NEVENT or Draftify per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL. The keep votes have it backwards. We wait until the sourcing is there and WP:EVENTCRIT is proved to be met. We don't keep articles because they might pass EVENTCRIT later. Further, WP:PERSISTENCE/WP:LASTING isn't just a week or two down the line. We need coverage over at least a year or more to demonstrate that in WP:DIVERSE sourcing.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, per nom and 4meter4, and Merge some content into El Segundo, California#History. A cursory search of news coverage on the subject returns few results more recent than ~2 weeks ago, which seems to indicate little lasting notability. Ark Hyena (she/they) 04:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are sufficient to establish notability under the WP:GNG, as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:NOTNEWS specifies that the coverage should not be WP:ROUTINE, which I see no indication that it is - the substantive analysis of the causes and implications of the event clearly go beyond any routine coverage.Katzrockso (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable outlets such as CNN and Reuters. There might be more to come, but this fireball event is already major .— Maile (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, coverage exceeds routine coverage at this point. Though the article does need a lot of work DarmaniLink (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

[1] Waldenberg, Samantha (October 16, 2025). "Trump says he will meet with Putin in Budapest to discuss war in Ukraine". CNN. Retrieved October 23, 2025.

[jg-2] Garrison, Joey (October 21, 2025). "Trump's meeting with Putin in Budapest scrapped just days after summit was announced". USA Today. Retrieved October 23, 2025.

[1]

[2]