Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wcquidditch (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 2 November 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2027_Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_general_election (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Events

2027 Saint Kitts and Nevis general election

2027 Saint Kitts and Nevis general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I thank the page author for their work, there is no confirmed or scheduled 2027 election. The main source this page relies on is speculative and wrong, because it implies there is a fixed 5 year election rule for example and that August is the deadline. It is more complex; while the life of a parliament is 5 years, an election can be held up to 90 days after the dissolution of parliament. This is from the first sitting of parliament which for the current parliament was in October 2022, meaning the next election could be as late as the end of January 2028 (here is the legislation). None of the existing sources show e.g. The 90 day rule and the prospect of a 2028 election, and any attempt to use e.g. statutory sources to show a conclusion of this would be a case of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Our responsibility here is to be careful and appropriate in how we report the verified facts.

The article doesn't add extra value beyond content that already exists in other pages about the federation's politics; it has no info specific to the next election on polling, the election details, the candidates who are running etc, boundaries, registered parties etc. As someone who extensively contributes to Saint Kitts and Nevis politics on Wikipedia, I would be surprised if any reliable secondary sources would report on this until much closer to the time of the next election, and I cannot currently find any credible reporting about the next election and would have loved to have been able to help improve the page. Unfortunately, the sources just do not exist at the moment. We have to think about whether there is more value added by this page existing, or whether there is less value because it creates a narrative that isn't substantiated and could even mislead readers on the verified facts of the next election. I'm aware some may be inclined to propose we reword the page to something more generic like "next Saint Kitts and Nevis general election", but the sources and content to not provide any substance to reporting on this and with no reliable sources on the subject matter of the page (i.e. the next election), this is therefore clearly a case of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOON. There are also e.g. potential drastic changes to the boundaries and seat numbers for example that are under review but could take a while to implement, so the generic information included about the election process may not even be accurate by the time of the next election. While I really do welcome any contributions to Saint Kitts and Nevis politics on Wiki, put simply, unfortunately this page has no need to exist as things stand. Greenleader(2) (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in my nomination, there is no 2027 election. In fact, the most likely election date will be in 2028, as evidenced by every recent SKN election following the 5 year + 90 day rule, with the main exception being the 2022 snap election. There are quite literally 0 reliable sources that exist that reliably demonstrate a likely 2027 election. The only source used to back this up on the page is very clearly not reliable because they say, without evidence, it must be by August 2027, when I have demonstrated this is factually wrong. The other two sources that are used on the page are completely unrelated to any future election. I have noted my concerns about how misleading this Wiki page is as things stand and despite researching for further information, there are unfortunately 0 reliable secondary sources which establish any information about the next election, meaning there is no possibility of improving or expanding it for a long time. I do not see how we can uphold verifiability and the page's right to exist with 0 reliable sources available on its topic here? Greenleader(2) (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move to "Next Saint Kitts and Nevis general election" should there begin to have polls. We still don't know when such an election would occur but barring a catastrophic event it would happen. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 10:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the creator of this page, I will abstain from voting in a direct manner, and I will let the community to decide whether or not this page is needed, and in what form. As always, it will be no problem to me to accept the decision of the community, whatever it may be. I just want to say that I hear and understand the nominator's arguments, although I may (partly) disagree with them. Finally, IMHO it seems more logical to move the page to "Next Saint Kitts and Nevis general election" instead to draftify it, if the issues of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOON are taken into account. The same solution was applied to Next Mauritian general election, exactly two months ago. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 15:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Minas Gerais

Miss Grand Minas Gerais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Strasburg

Battle of Strasburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been unsourced since creation in 2006. Military Operations lists skirmishes at/near Strasburg for August 14 and 15 and a "dubious entry" for a possible skirmish on August 12. Dyer lists an Action at Winchester on August 17 listing the Union regiments claimed to have fought here (along with some others) but disagrees on the casualty count. The Official Records indexes the August 13, 14, and 15 skirmishes at Strasburg, but nothing on August 17, but does list the "Action at Winchester" on August 17. There are some original reports that discuss the Action at Winchester within the Official Records (Series I, Volume XLIII, Part I).

The best I can turn up in the secondary literature is the following from Wert, From Winchester to Cedar Creek, pp. 34-24: When Jubal Early, from atop Fisher's Hill, saw at daylight of the 17th the vacated Federal lines at Cedar Creek, he ordered an immediate pursuit and signalled Anderson to move toward Winchester. The cavalry preceded the infantry, exchanging shots with Union horsemen engaged in burning. Late in the afternoon the van of Early's column collided with Sheridan's rear guard south of Winchester. The Southerners routed the Yankees in a brief, nasty firefight before encamping around the village for the night. Anderson, meanwhile, approached Winchester from the southeast. The present article we have claims a Union victory in the infobox. I do not believe that this is a topic for which an acceptable article can be written. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Cantabria

Miss Grand Cantabria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appears to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:SPAM (Advertisements masquerading as articles) operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that the 1 November Miss Grand nominations should be withdrawn to save editor time while discussion continues at WP:COIN. I have found 451 articles about Miss Grand, so if articles need to be nominated for deletion, then a bundled list is probably appropriate. TSventon (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Georgia

Miss Grand Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appears to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand La Rioja

Miss Grand La Rioja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Euskadi

Miss Grand Euskadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Navarra

Miss Grand Navarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Zaragoza

Miss Grand Zaragoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Catalonia

Miss Grand Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appears to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Galicia

Miss Grand Galicia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation.Thomson Walt (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Extremadura

Miss Grand Extremadura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation.Thomson Walt (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Toledo

Miss Grand Toledo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Paraná

Miss Grand Paraná (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Las Palmas

Miss Grand Las Palmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Asunción

Miss Grand Asunción (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Abruzzo

Miss Grand Abruzzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Apulia

Miss Grand Apulia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Madrid

Miss Grand Madrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were dominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024/25 Queens League Américas

2024/25 Queens League Américas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:V. Really not sure how a 'first season' will yet be notable. Appreciating that AfD is not cleanup I am content with draftification by consensus as an outcome as an ATD, or by WP:HEY 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Lincoln University shooting

2025 Lincoln University shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not entirely convinced that this incident meets WP:NEVENT criteria and I suspect many interested editors are not even aware of the article's existence. National coverage was brief and this was one of several instances of gun violence at alumni and school sporting events, but in comparison to other articles that exist about some of those incidents, this incident seems much less notable based on coverage. If found to not be notable enough to warrant an article, I propose a redirect to Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)#History. Raskuly (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I heard a lot of local news about this because it actually happened in my county, but I will admit I was very surprised it was hardly covered at all by national sources, especially because it clearly met the criteria of a mass shooting. If it is agreed upon to delete here, I will not make an objection.
Red0ctober22 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tunnels Checkpoint shooting

2023 Tunnels Checkpoint shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Lots of coverage, but this event did not have WP:LASTING. Could be one line on Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023: "On 16 November 2023, Hamas militants Abd al-Qader Qawasmeh, Hassan Ma'moun Qafisheh, Naser Abd al-Afo Qawasmeh opened fire on the Tunnels Checkpoint on Highway 60, killing Avraham Fetena of the Military Police Corps and injuring five others. All three Hamas militants were killed in the firefight, and the IDF demolished their hgomes in the West Bank." Longhornsg (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modus Cup

Modus Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT – it's just a game played between high school students. Tagged as such since 2018. Incidental coverage in a local newspaper and for one game only in the Daily Mail. The page is mostly serving as a library of links to Vimeo and YouTube videos of the games; attempts to remove those links under WP:ELNO have repeatedly failed. I attempted to remove the links and tidy up the formatting, and prod the article this morning; both edits were reverted without comment. • a frantic turtle 🐢 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, numerous reliable sources:
[1]
[2]
[3] - Daily Mail article
[4]
[5]
Pretty sure it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT with blazing colors. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Abu Dhabi T10

2021 Abu Dhabi T10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable season that doesn't warrant a separate season article. Every other season of this has been deleted by WP:PROD but this one was not PROD eligible, so AFD is the only method to get a deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything helpful could be copied across to the parent article, although I don't really see very much that would be. Otherwise clearly a delete Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1957 United States Air Force incursion into Albanian airspace

1957 United States Air Force incursion into Albanian airspace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With no casualties to speak of, I fail to see how this article meets WP:GNG. There is, however, no reason the incident can't be listed as a short entry at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–1959). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – This information could also be merged into the Communist Albania section on the Albania–United States relations article. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Creator User:NormalguyfromUK "has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.". — Maile (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a target to be determined per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jolielover♥talk 04:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 October 2025 Trump-Xi meeting

30 October 2025 Trump-Xi meeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I am extremely averse to WP:NOTNEWS and believe it is applied overzealously, this is the one article where its prohibition on "News reports" is applicable. The events of this meeting are "routine news coverage"; the meeting lasted for less than two hours without any seismic agreement—if such an agreement had been made, that is what the topic of the article should be. Perhaps there is room for an article on Trump's Asia trip writ large, but I am skeptical. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This article be can redirected and incorporated in APEC Summit since the meeting was held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit. MichealKal (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bilateral meetings between American Presidents and Chinese General Secretaries are ipso facto notable and perforce have stand-alone articles, outcomes notwithstanding. kencf0618 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I agree that this subject does not merit its own article, however a redirect to APEC Summit is also inappropriate. That article is about APEC and its history, not specifically the 2025 meeting.The event is already included on China–United States trade war. That is the better redirect destination, considering the meeting was for the purpose of reaching a trade agreement and lowering trade tensions between the two countries Jcgaylor (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the China-United States trade war article is the most appropriate redirect target. More specifically, China–United States trade war#2025, per WP:RSECT. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Naqada

Siege of Naqada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article 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]

1935 United Kingdom heatwaves

1935 United Kingdom heatwaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

2012 IIHF U18 Challenge Cup of Asia

2012 IIHF U18 Challenge Cup of Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: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]

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

April 2023 Nablus incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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

Ashkelon rocket attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

2024 Derdghaya Melkite Church airstrike

2024 Derdghaya Melkite Church airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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]

2025 Ekalaka helicopter crash

2025 Ekalaka helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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]

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]
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

Pika Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]
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

Battle of Llapushnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP: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. [6] 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]

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]

Yugoslav offensive on Kabash

Yugoslav offensive on Kabash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable 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]

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]

Zana ambush

Zana ambush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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]
Redirect to Siege of Khan Yunis, related topic which is a plausible search term with coverage at said page. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 00:50, 24 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]

2025 Varanasi gang rape

2025 Varanasi gang rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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.[7] 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 [8][9][10], 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]

@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]
  • 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]
    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]

2005 Ram Mandir attack

2005 Ram Mandir attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article 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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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 ([11]); 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]

Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Events&oldid=1320093119"