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

Disappearance of Lilly and Jack Sullivan

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

This seems to me like a case of too soon. The article appears to fail WP:EVENTCRIT in that this is a very recent event, with only recent coverage, and any lasting effects have yet to been established. As this only just happened, there has been no analysis of events after the fact. Per WP:GEOSCOPE, this is something of only regional importance, for a province with a population of only about one million people. I asked the author if they would object to me draftifying it, and they did, so it would no longer be appropriate to do so. MediaKyle (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated nomination: After thinking over it some more I feel like I should provide additional context for those voting in this AfD. This tragic disappearance of two children happened only three weeks ago. There has been conflicting reported on details by reputable news publishers, which has caused a flurry of speculation on true crime forums across the net, with the overarching speculation being that the parents did something terrible to their children. In addition to my previously stated reasons of this article contravening event notability guidelines, Wikipedia should have no part in the denigration of this family. If anything, this article should be sent to draft until it can be determined that this actually had any lasting impact. It should be noted that the event notability criteria specifically states that although many tragic events receive coverage, that alone doesn't warrant inclusion. MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. I fail to see how the subject fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it has been covered both nationally in Canada as well as internationally in media outside of Canada (Newsweek, CNN, The Guardian), two of which were used as citations in the article at the time of its nomination. Regarding WP:EVENTCRIT, I would argue the subject of the article has lasting, historical significance, as it pertains to the unusual disappearance of two sibling children together under the care of their parents under mysterious circumstances, and has been described in various sources as being 'baffling' or 'strange' in nature. The scope of reporting is evidently also national and global as previously mentioned. The nominator advised on talk page discussion that "As a Nova Scotian" he was "rather uncomfortable" with the article as-is, but, with apologies, Wikipedia is not censored for the comfort of those closely involved with its subject matter.McRandy1958 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the coverage that this has. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage does not seem especially in depth and all sources are quite close temporally and most are close location wise. A lot of children go missing. While very sad there’s not the kind of coverage that really demonstrates a passage of WP:NEVENT PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:EVENTCRIT, there is no indication that this event had/has any lasting significance beyond the initial reporting. I fail to see how this story has "enduring historical significance" as required by guideline. I thus strongly suspect there is no WP:PERSISTENCE to this but it may be too early to make a final judgement call on that front. --hroest 01:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe this article should be kept, not just for its media coverage (which includes national and international sources), but because it documents the disappearance of two Indigenous children who are members of the Sipekne'katik First Nation, the second-largest Mi'kmaw community in Nova Scotia. The Sipekne'katik leadership released a public statement expressing deep concern and solidarity: “Our Chief and Council, administration, and the entire community are united in our strong desire to see these children return home safely.”

Indigenous children have historically been erased—both physically and narratively—through systems that ignored or dismissed their disappearances. Canada’s own Truth and Reconciliation Commission speaks to this legacy. Deleting this article risks contributing to that erasure.

Whether or not this case is “resolved,” it is already notable as part of the larger historical and social context of Indigenous child disappearances in Canada. It has also drawn widespread public attention due to the unusual nature of the event (two siblings disappearing simultaneously from a home), which meets WP:EVENTCRIT.

If there are concerns that the article is too recent, it should be moved to Draft, not deleted. But it should not be removed entirely from Wikipedia.

— TruthTold1988 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta–Kidarite conflict

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

Lacks notability as a standalone topic; minimal sourcing, limited content, and better covered within broader articles like Gupta Empire or Kidarites. Duplicative and does not meet WP:N. BharatGanguly (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, Pakistan, Iran, India, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. BharatGanguly (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1173 Polonnaruwa invasion of Chola

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This submission, or separate article, appears to be either a duplicate or unsourced fork of larger themes such as Chola–Polonnaruwa relations in general. There is no indication of historical significance worth having an article on its own. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, Hinduism, Asia, Sri Lanka, India, and Tamil Nadu. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babusar bus accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dschang bus-truck crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained coverage beyond passing mentions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Cameroon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Peru bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaragupta's invasion of Aparanta

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

The article does not have notability and makes a conjectural interpretation based on insufficient amounts of suspect evidence (coin hoards and vague literary references) without enough importance from primary sources. The event does not have enough detailed coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and would better off being added to the article on Kumaragupta I. BharatGanguly (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. BharatGanguly (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom also the article has only two sources lacking Nobility and enough coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakakarta (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Shakakarta (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is based on only two sources; while historians like Moorkeji states Kumaragupta I didn't make any conquests, and Majumdar states that he did make some conquests but without any success.[1]Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lying on face ? Let me quote what mookerji actually said "Kumaragupta I may be credited not merely with the negative and static work of maintaining his imperial inheritance but also with some positive and bold exploits in adding to the extent of that inheritance by some new conquests and records.But the fact of these conquests achieved by him is indicated by his issue of the significant Aśvamedha type of gold coinage bearing on obv. the legend Jayati divam Kumārah (Kumāra conquers heaven) and on Rev. Śrī Aśvamedhamahendrah. The celebration of horse sacrifice is a sure proof of some considerable conquests achieved by the king"

Please do some research about the topic before making any decision CelesteQuill (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CelesteQuill If you like, you can also use {{talk quote|"Your quote"}} for quoting references. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moorkeji (1947) still don't mentions Kumaragupta I's invasion of Aparanta.[2] BharatGanguly (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Though the article has only 3 sources , it doesn't changes the fact that Gupta coins are found in the region for the very first time ,that too in abundance and concentrated hoards ,thus contradicting any possibility that these coins came into this region via trade.

CelesteQuill (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is supported by scholarly secondary sources such as Goyal (1967), Sharma (1989), Mookerji (1947), and RC Majumdar (1946). I'm not confident about Majumdar but other are better sources. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are surely scholarly but a quick check reveals that except Goyal(1967) none of the other sources mentions Kumaragupta I's invasion of Aparanta.

While RC Majumdar only gives an insignificant Idea of this invasion.[3] pg.173

A large hoard of Kumāra-gupta's coins, found at Satara in Bombay, has been taken by some as a possible indication of Gupta influence in the South-Western Deccan', though obviously we cannot draw any definite conclusion from this or the find of 13 coins of his at Ellichpur.
BharatGanguly (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SolarSyntax (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Cumilla City Corporation election

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

Clearly a non-notable election. Would have draftified first, but the creator created a page in the mainspace with basically the same content as the one in draftspace (Draft:2012 Cumilla City Corporation election) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable election. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has completely different results, so I have to assume this is a test page in mainspace. Nathannah • 📮 21:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 OFC U-16 Women's Championship qualification

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT, Just a results listings of an under 16 competition. No appropriate redirect target.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see coverage that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE, beyond simple listing of scores and other results. U-16: Friends of Football: [4], [5], [6]. Football in Oceania: [7]. Samoa News: [8]. U-19: Friends of Football: [9]. Talanoao 'O Tonga: [10]. Just to note, this is an example of coverage from a competition that I would consider routine: [11]. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 05:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The football related sources cannot be considered independent third party sources. This source and this which you have identified are about the U19 team and not this event? LibStar (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Misread the nomination and thought the other nominated page was U-19. Why should the others not be considered independent third-party sources? They are reliable with journalistic backing.

Additionally, U-16 sources: [12], [13] Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 05:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not journalist backing or considered reliable press. They appear to be blog sites and unreliable as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haj Omran (1966)

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

Battle may or may not exist, none of the three sources are verifiable. One goes to a dead link, another to a newspaper article that does not exist per the newspaper's archive, the third is a print book that is not available online and has no preview on Google Books. There was a battle on a different date during the Iran-Iraq War, but nothing noted by Google or Google books for 1966. I was able to find a CIA document that might be what the dead link was supposed to point to, it mentions Haj Omran but is about a visit in 1974 and only mentions that there was fighting in 1966, it gives no details. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick check to the article and checked one of the links, specified under the name of the "CIA" and it was a dead link. I support the Delete of this article R3YBOl (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All three sources are inaccessible. Skitash (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator i agree it should be deleted or put into a draft DataNomad (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Wareham Forest fire

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

fire not notable enough for an article, doesn't meet WP:NEVENT and had minor impacts compared to other much larger UK wildfires which do not have articles harrz ^talk 21:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. harrz ^talk 21:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016)

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

The article lacks sources and fails WP:GNG; the topic is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, the title is misleading as it implies that the perpetrators were not also Iraqi, which is factually incorrect. Skitash (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article in fact does have reliable sources such as Human rights watch, amnesty international but i will add more cause of this. And what do you mean the perpatrators were also iraqi what is your evidence? It makes no sense to why iraqis would expell there own people DataNomad (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And even if the article needs a few more sources i still dont see how this is reasonable to nominate it for deletion DataNomad (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's concerning that you're reintroducing material from a previously deleted article (Deportation of Iraqis), especially when the deletion was likely due to policy issues. Repeating the same content under a new title can be seen as evading consensus. Wikipedia isn't the place for pushing personal or political narratives. R3YBOl (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Zemen (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GNG is met, as best I can tell. There is SIGCOV from reliable sources, including news coverage of UN concerns published by Reuters, a variety of other news sources, and commentary produced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While the title is bad—this should be more generally entitled something like Kirkuk expulsions (2016)—that alone is insufficient to support a deletion. I don't see a basis to believe that this article should be deleted for pushing personal or political narratives, either, as no evidence that it is doing so has been raised. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article uses multiple reliable sources and keeps a neutral point and doesnt seem to have any problems at all. 185.244.152.248 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha Revolt 1843

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources on this exist. None of the sources in use in this article support 99% of the text in this article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro what? The sources are cited, read them, you have no valid reason to issue a speedy deletion. There are multiple sources on this, reported by even contemporary missionaries. Stop excluding the cited sources; which are enough to make the page stay. 2A02:AA1:115D:84B3:ACB2:8E83:1328:5261 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – how are all the sources fake? DataNomad (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Wiki page has its sources, no reason for deletion, Jsanihsjsn (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the sources, Aboona 2008 devotes an entire section spanning several pages to "Armed Revolt at Asheetha, November 1843". The Seyfo Center devotes 3 paragraphs to a revolt in 1843. Nala4u.com seems to be of dubious reliability, and citations 2-5 are incomplete to the point of being almost useless, but I think there's enough to go on from the first two to surmise that additional sources likely exist, albeit potentially using different spellings of Ashitha and not necessarily calling it "Revolt" in a canonical sense. The article does indulge in unencyclopedic tone, although it is worth noting that our best source thus far, Aboona 2008, does describe atrocities at length. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It has good sources describing in detail what happened and it was an important event that took place in Hakkari in the 1800s. Termen28 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the 2015 Tianjin explosions

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

A sad event, but the victims aren't notable. Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and China. Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a rather huge event(Compared to 911 on some occasions), and victims lists are pretty common on the article themselves, just that the article itself likely cannot fit the people. Now, I understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I would say this is about as notable as Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks. Additionally, this list sort of already exists on List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty#2010s, and among the casualties is the former deputy chief of the TEDA zone fire brigade.

Additionally, more secondary sources will likely come soon to increase notability, this article was sort of rushed a little bit, as I originally intended for this to simply be a section in the 2015 Tianjin Explosions article. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don´t get the logic. We don´t list the victims for small accidents, as these normally don´t have an article for the event. We don´t lust the victims of truly large events (war, famine, natural disasters) as there are too many, it would be an indiscriminate list, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, take your pick... But for a small group of intermediate events we suddenly have articles to list the victims, even though they aren´t really any different from all these others. Seems completely arbitrary. Fram (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thehistorianisaac ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am reluctant to delete any topic that is the subject of an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with Fram. Event is notable as major industrial accident. Individual casualties are not, unless by some other criteria and those can be included/summarized in the relevant section of the event article. Notable findings from the Chinese Journal of Traumatology source can be added to the main event article; right now it's just being used to verify casualty statistics. It's really stretching to claim that this event is comparable to 9/11; nothing of the sort is mentioned in the event article, and I think it's pretty safe to say this industrial accident was not a major geopolitical event with commensurate global effects lasting decades (and ongoing?) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON

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

@Fram@RovingPersonalityConstruct

I propose a third solution. Of course, I still would prefer to keep the article, however it is possible this could simply be merged back to the original article, whether it be purely the statistics table or the list itself. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 4th possible solution:

I could possibly expand the article to be more similar to Casualties of the September 11 attacks instead of Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks and include information on stuff like initial disaster relief(which has gained tonnes of coverage, thanks to the actions of the 8th street company) and make the article notable, while keeping the list itself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this could also include related things(who all were heavily covered) like an alleged higher casualty count, political discussion about the police and volunteer firefighters being technically private police and originally being ineligible for certain awards etc.

This was originally how I planned to do the list, though it got AfD'ed before I managed to fully write it Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RovingPersonalityConstruct For the comparison to 911, here is a source from Radio France Internationale citing bloomberg that many chinese compared the damage of the attack to the September 11 attacks (https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20150820-%E7%BA%BD%E7%BA%A6%E6%B6%88%E9%98%B2%E9%98%9F%E4%B8%BA%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E9%81%87%E9%9A%BE%E7%9A%84%E6%B6%88%E9%98%B2%E5%91%98%E9%99%8D%E5%8D%8A%E6%97%97%E8%87%B4%E5%93%80) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparable as in similar event/scale/impact. As I said, industrial accident vs. major geopolitical event. That sort of thing requires more than the NYFD lowering its flag to half-mast like they did after 9/11. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fram and RovingPersonalityConstruct. Perhaps further detail of casualties can be added to the main article, but a stand-alone article is not warranted. - Amigao (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON

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

@Fram@Amigao@RovingPersonalityConstruct

I think I need to clarify something:

The list of victims already existed to some extent on the List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty#2010s, however that only included the active service firefighters. The "victims" section of 2015 Tianjin Explosions originally linked to this article.

The only thing the current article does is include volunteer firefighters, police, civilians and adding some context, such as regarding the 8th Street Company, the legal status of the private police and volunteer firefighters. The only thing this article really changes is that the info is easier to access and more complete. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these "killed in the line of duty" articles (not just China, but e.g. the endless US articles) need deletion or severe pruning, but that's a separate discussion. Having part of this information available in another article is not really a reason to create or keep this one. Fram (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the killed in the line of duty articles should be deleted or pruned as line of duty deaths often receive significant coverage and are much-discussed social topics whether in USA or china, in fact many of them need significant expansions; But yeah that's another topic.

Many topics related to Tianjin explosions casualties, as said above, did gain huge coverage by Chinese and foreign media, such as said above, the legal status and eligability for rewards of some of the firefighters and police. Many casualty related topics do have notability but not enough to have their own articles, so I put them here.

I think a victims list is pretty reasonable to include in an article like this, and I really hate to be the WP:OTHERSTUFF guy, but aren't we ignoring the fact that the September 11 attacks have a total of 3 lists + a casualty article? Yes, they are different in nature, but I really need to point out the inconsistencies here.

As stated before, victims lists are also pretty common overall. I think at most this article can simply be merged back to the original. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original article was pretty much just rushed, currently it has more content and will likely be further expanded. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 4:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:NOPAGE. No independent notability. There's nothing in this article that can't be merged into the parent—if it's not there already. The accident was the notable thing; a list of unfortunates whom it killed is not. It also verges on WP:NOTMEMORIAL. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I think it has been pretty normal to include victims of crimes(just see serial killers); For merging, this actually was originally meant to be part of the parent article, but this would probably be way too long. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: You have replied to every delete !vote in this dscussion. Indeed, you've contributed 50% of the edits to this page on your own. Please don't do that, it's considered WP:BLUDGEONing. You've made your points—several times now—and repetition is unhelpful. I suggest you step back and let uninvolved editors make their own minds up (which they will anyway!). Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have an independent, reliable source that discusses these people as a group, so WP:NLIST is met. Looking at the article, we have [14][15][16][17]. Given NLIST is for "Stand-alone lists", I read it as superseding NOPAGE; either way, none of the three bolded bullet points under NOPAGE apply here. We have plenty of sources and discussing this topic at length in the main article would be undue.

On previous arguments for deletion: 1. The victims do not have to be notable for the list topic to be (WP:NLISTITEM). 2. The significance of the event does not matter in deciding notability or suitability of a stand-alone list. Neither do comparisons to other events. Toadspike [Talk] 08:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Although we all (or most) sympathize with victims creating a memorial is supposed to be among What Wikipedia is not. See: Wikipedia:Victim lists. There is apparently a source that names the victims. List the number of victims and link to the list. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not soley a victims list, but also includes information related to casualties during the explosions. Additionally, some of the casualties are notable(but have no wikipedia article and likely will not have one), such as as a deputy fire chief and a deputy police chief. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty which this article substantially duplicates. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the main purpose of having a list of people is because they are notable and the list makes it easier to find the article about the person concerned. This isn't the case with this article, as few, if any, of the people listed have full biographies. The difference with the casualties of the September 11 attacks is that many notable people were killed, some of whom now have Wikipedia article. That is not the case with this industrial explosion, where about all we know about these individuals is their name and their firefighting company. That is not enough to write even a start of a biography. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 German public transport strike

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

A one-day event without much lasting effect, probably fails WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a strike involving 400,000 workers which was described as "‘paralyzing’ Europe’s biggest economy" is unquestionably notable.--User:Namiba 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Firstly, I don't see what WP:GNG has to do with it. The sources cited clearly demonstrate sufficient coverage. All three are on the WP:RSPLIST, and by searching online I can see that more sources have covered it as well. Secondly, this was seemingly a huge strike ("the largest transport workers' action since a series of strikes in the 1990s") that did "paralyz[e] Europe's biggest economy", as Namiba points out. Spookyaki (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NEVENT says that lasting effect is a strong indicator of notability, but not having lasting effect isn't disqualifying. There's lots of good articles on Wikipedia covering events that haven't had lasting, transformative impacts on the broader world. "Lasting impacts" can be a bit relative in the context of strikes too, because they typically do have lasting impacts; it's just that they're confined to a certain part of the workforce. Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But also it seems that RS from 2024 also describes lasting impact in the overall affiliation to the organizing unions: [18]. MarioGom (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough reliable sources have significantly covered it to meet GNG, and a strike composed of hundreds of thousands of people, even for a single day, very likely meets the "lasting effect" criteria. Even if the effect is only in that part of the workforce, that is still an impactful event.

(more citations should be added to the article, though. I'll put a cleanup template) ApexParagon (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’ve added BBC and Reuters content to an already well-sourced article that also includes The New York Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera. We’re spoilt for choice on WP:THREE, and the event clearly meets WP:GNG. While it lasted just one day, its scale and widespread disruption received significant international coverage, meeting WP:NEVENT. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was a significant event. The article is well-sourced. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough SIGCOV in RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Film Carnival Singapore

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Independent Film Festival

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per WP:COVERAGE section at WP:EVENTS, there is enough sources to satisfy the criteria "diversity of sources" but the "depth of coverage" is lacking. The best articles I found are by Exberliner: [19], Hero (British magazine): [20], and Screen Daily: [21]. The "duration of coverage" is also lacking, very difficult to find coverage of the festival in some years. You would think that winners and film line-ups would be regularly reported but seems to be not the case. --Mika1h (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFone Flick Fest

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Ref 3 FilmInk is a press release. Ref 7 Sydney Times is a portion of same. Ref 5 Filmink is PR from MINA, a partner. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited from their ambassadors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is indeed notable, going from strength to strength, and has some big names associated with it. Films made on mobile phones are becoming more common. It is possible and even likely that at least some of the emerging filmmakers who feature in this festival will go on to become major filmmakers in the future. As you can see, I have added more detail and many more citations since the deletion was proposed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 CON-CAN Movie Festival

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

Article about an individual iteration of a film festival, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for events. As always, individual annual editions of film festivals can have their own standalone articles if they contain WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to establish that the event was seen as significant -- see e.g. Cannes, Berlin, TIFF, Sundance -- but they do not automatically need their own separate articles just because they happened. But this cites just one reference, which isn't enough all by itself and hasn't even been represented accurately -- it's claimed as an article in the Japan Times, but the link actually leads to archived content self-published by the festival itself rather than anything GNG-building.
This was also shot through with dozens of WP:ELNO-violating embedded offsite links to the archived page for every individual film in the program, still from the festival's own website rather than third-party coverage about the festival or any of the films, which I've had to strip. This is, further, the only edition of this film festival with its own standalone article, as no others have ever been created for any other year, and it's not at all clear that the 2008 edition would somehow be a special case of greater notability than any other edition of the same festival.
Simply existing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to pass WP:GNG on its sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khankala (1735)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of Khankala (1735) (2nd nomination)

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

Poorly sourced. The only source used is some book Хожаев, Д. (1998). Чеченец (in Russian). Khozhaev seems to be a Chechen field commander, brigadier general and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, since no degree in history. And I couldn't find the book on the Internet, must be WP:RSSELF. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's first nomination in fact Devlet Geray (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think "Poorly sourced" is in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. More relevant is "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Has WP:BEFORE been done? I also am dubious that you have to have a degree in history or history books you write will be considered unreliable. It seems that plenty of authors have written histories without a formal degree in that subject (one even got a Nobel prize for theirs). But even in that case, our own article on Dalkhan Khozhaev states "In 1983 he graduated from the faculty of History of the Chechen-Ingush State University" and that he was a researcher at the Chechen-Ingush Republican Regional Museum, the author of works on the history of the national liberation movement of Chechnya in the 19th century and Head of the Archives Department. It seems strange you've copied "Chechen field commander, brigadier general" from the start of our article but chosen to edit that from the full description "Chechen historian, field commander, brigadier general and author with numerous works on the centuries-old confrontation between Chechnya and Russia". Given his publication history, he was an academic and writer before his military service, and continued the former during the latter. The article on the Russian wikipedia has quite a bit more on him and has a number of his books listed. The source used in the article is his 1998 «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers (isbn and catalogue listing here). That you only suspect he might not be reliable, you assume that the source must be self published, these weren't really strong arguments for deletion without having done a proper WP:BEFORE. And given that these things have been disproven, there's nothing left in the nomination. Spokoyni (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll also further add that Khozhaev's book is not "the only source used", there's another in the article, and a WP:BEFORE would have shown there were originally four sources in the article, two of which the original author later removed on the incorrect rationale that they did not add any additional content to what the other sources stated. Spokoyni (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly wrote that he does not have a degree in history, he is not a specialist in the history of Chechnya (no PhD thesis). How can he be used as a source for a topic like this? Makes absolutely no sence. Moreover, the figures and data presented in the article are initially implausible. In addition, the links are given for show, since it is impossible to verify them. Plus, zero cross-wiki and no information on this "battle" on the Internet, makes the article absoulte original research Devlet Geray (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of that makes any sense, suggest speedy keep under "the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion". He has a degree in history, he is a speciality on the history of Chechnya, and if you are suggesting only history books written by those with a phd in history are reliable, you need to go and change the entire nature of what makes a WP:RS. If you mean sources rather than links, they are published accounts and are verfiable (that you personally can't or won't verify them is not an acceptable reason). The absence of articles on other wikis is not a criteria for deletion here, nor is lack of google hits. You tried to get this speedied as a hoax, that was declined. Then you prodded it "because it never happened", and that was declined, and now you're attacking one of the two (out of originally four) sources in the article as a reason for deletion because the book's author doesn't have a phd. I can see your desire to get this deleted for some reason, I'm just not seeing any actual rationale for it. Why do you think this is a hoax, or an invented instance? Spokoyni (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Devlet Geray (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‌‌‌‌‌Meanwhile, I found a pdf version of the book «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers and there is no mention of such a "battle". Devlet Geray (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Basivka

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

Not notable. Sources do not seem to treat this engagement as a notable event. In fact many news articles don't even bother with mentioning the village's name in the headline [22] [23] [24] [25] [26].

Literally all information is already present in parent article 2025 Sumy Oblast incursion. The exception are the following two senteces: According to Ruslan Mykula the Russian forces tried to advance into Loknia but failed, all eight soldiers involved in the attempt have been killed. (information about a small raid, not even a date is given, the info might not even be worth merging); and On April 9, Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets reported that Russia’s 76th Air Assault Division and 83rd VDV Brigade had successfully seized Basivka. (with the 24 April confirmation, this is superfluous).

Parent article currently has 1,503 words of prose [27], very far from the recommended 6,000-word threshold after which a split is plausible [28]. The village in question had 644 people in 2001. It is a small, probably unstrategic village, sources do not particularly highlight its importance. Many users in this topic area insist on creating articles that are evidently not notable, for random engagements. Super Ψ Dro 19:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 19:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don’t even understand why such an article was created in the first place. Basivka as it stands is effectively irrelevant in the larger picture of this war. It serves effectively no strategic value, nor is the settlement notable or relevant in media. This article was created as a spur of the moment when Russia launched its incursion into Sumy Oblast, and is effectively covered in its entirety by its parent article. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Non-extended confirmed editor. Mellk (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per reason Above Bukansatya (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per notability issue 78.81.123.235 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC) The current date and time is 25 May 2025 T 05:42 UTC. Non-extended confirmed editor. Mellk (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dragonfly

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

Article has been sitting since its creation on 25 October 2023, having not been expanded at all since then. It is about a unique, out of many, Ukrainian strike against Russian forces. The only reason why it could be notable would be for it being the first instance of ATACMS usage by Ukraine in the war, according to the article.

The first results when looking up "Operation Dragonfly" on Google aren't even about the invasion of Ukraine. In five pages of results in Google, I could only find the following sources about this strike: [29] [30] [31].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. The most recent source is the latter, from 23 October, six days after the strike happened. I do not believe the strike has long-lasting coverage in sources. Simply by reading the article, the strike surely was not nothing, but it doesn't seem worth a Wikipedia article. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this was a significant event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect It's true that the article is relatively short and the page might not have merit to exist on its own, but that doesn't mean the content is not worthy to exist at all. It would be better if the information are merged onto a larger page that discusses airstrikes in the war, because this page is certainly not the only one and there are many more similar to this one in Category:Attacks on military installations in Ukraine or Category:Ukrainian airstrikes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also prefer this page become a redirect after the merge as it is still the first result after a google search. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus, @Shwabb1, @NickK, @Aleksandr Grigoryev For discussion TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. Hard to say:

On one hand, this is likely the first ever use of ATACAMS by Ukraine, with significant (from military point of view) result. As such this is a notable enough military operation and it has enough sources.
On the other hand, it is very likely that no further information about this operation will be released until the war ends (for obvious reasons). As a result, this article will likely stay in current state for a while.

I would read this that fundamentally this is a notable military operation, but practically we will not be able to improve this article further for unknown period of time — NickK (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's the case as well. Overall I don't mind the idea of merging this into a larger article that lists major airstrikes including this one, as this article is quite small on its own and, as you've said, we're not getting much more info on it any time soon. Shwabb1 ⟨ta co⟩ 01:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Park City Film Music Festival

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

Non notable festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (as noted in prod "article was created by an account whose sole purpose was to create articles to promote a film-maker who won an award at this festival." duffbeerforme (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Spring Cinefest

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films is trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

São Paulo Essay Olympiad

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

seems to be entirely non-notable Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Brazil. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The sources are all primary, from the São Paulo state education department. This type of event occurs routinely, without any prominence or impact. Svartner (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as run of the mill: almost every state has some sort of essay competition. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borobudur Vesak Lantern Festival

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

Completely LLM generated, WP:BLOWITUP would probably be the best course of action as I don't see any salvageable content. Laura240406 (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the creator of the page was also blocked indefinitely Laura240406 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Buddhism, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as a recent creation without inline sources, which would not have passed either AFC or NPP, this is a good candidate for draftification. MarioGom (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's completely written by AI though, that's why I suggested WP:TNT Laura240406 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy prohibiting content written by AI though. Lack of sources, however, is a reason to draftify a new article. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a selective merge to Vesak. I don't see any need to have a poorly sourced and poorly written article about a holiday celebration for one site. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Delta Air Lines stowaway case

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

Fails WP:GNG and just isn't really notable. Stowaway incidents happen nearly daily. Fadedreality556 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fadedreality556 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine story that will have no lasting coverage in the future. WP:NOTNEWS. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 14:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article creator. I thought this would have more updates and lasting coverage, but it has completely fizzled out. Natg 19 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stowaways are fairly common and coverage stopped after December. Nahida 🌷 23:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delta Air Lines § Controversies and passenger incidents: Latest reports I could find dates back to December 2024, which means this event fails WP:LASTING and WP:CASESTUDY. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine story with no coverage beyond the initial news cycle. We should always consider ATDs, but the incident is so minor that the mention on the DAL article is UNDUE and may well be removed, negating the value of the proposed redirect. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found articles from May 8 (court filings) and April 16 (surveillance videos). While they are ongoing coverage, I am skeptical that they are enough to establish notability. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The defendant was convicted on Thursday. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge or redirect.
1. The case's impact does not justify an article.
2. I have removed mentions from two other articles:
  1. Removal from Delta Air Lines#Controversies and passenger incidents, explanation at Talk:Delta Air Lines#November 2024 stowaway case
  2. Removal from Stowaway#Air travel, explanation at Talk:Stowaway#November 2024 airline in-cabin case.
Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 visit by Narendra Modi to the United States

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

The visit mainly got coverage from the Indian media, however, it failed to create any WP:LASTING impact. It also fails WP:NOTNEWS. Wareon (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Events, India, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are a lot of non-Indian reliable sources as well covering the visit (BBC, AP, NBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, see the refs section for article links). This article covers specific agreements and deals made by both leaders, so I believe this is does not violate not-news (as opposed to something just like Modi came to the US). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven’t fully understood WP:NOTNEWS. Routine political visits, even if widely reported, do not meet the notability to create article on it. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote per further information I understood. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting impact is documented about this visit. Modi has visited the US around 10 times, there is nothing significant about this visit any more than the previous ones (see WP:RUNOFTHEMILL), alternately this can be redirected to List of international prime ministerial trips made by Narendra Modi. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given Modi and Trump's February meeting happened just a few weeks before the US tariff announcements - I'd argue there is greater significance to this visit than previous ones. The scale and extent of 'agreements' reached during this meeting was quite large and noteworthy, especially since Trump had only been in office for one month at the time - this fact has been covered significantly in prominent non-indian media. To your point of 'no lasting impact is documented about this visit", here are a few non-Indian sources that covered this meeting and it's significance: CSIS BBC NYT I will note though that the original article needed significant work and if read in it's original form could be perceived as just another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL visit. I've started to revise accordingly. Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin stated that there is no lasting coverage for this event, in response you have provided sources that were only reporting this event back when it was happening, this only proves Ratnahastin's point. This is a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles report on the visit itself, but also include why the visit has enduring significance. My point is given the global geo-political events that closely followed, the coverage of this visit was anything but WP:ROUTINE. Schwinnspeed (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Heads of state visiting other countries are routine events which are covered when they happen and very rarely have lasting significance; and if they do, it's generally because of some specific event that takes place that is long remembered. It's been three months, and does anyone much remember Modi even being here, much less what was said or done? Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep-This visit of modi was covered by many reliable non-Indian outlets, including the BBC, AP, NBC, Al Jazeera, France 24 and many more. Also, it Passes WP:GNG, like @Bunnypranav said this article covers some specific agreements and deals made by both leaders. I think it shouldn't be deleted instead it should just be expanded like all other articles about leaders visiting other countries are (like 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East, 2023 visit by Fumio Kishida to Ukraine, 2023 visit by Xi Jinping to Russia). Also your saying that ^{Heads of state visiting other countries are routine events which are covered when they happen and very rarely have lasting significance It's been three months, and does anyone much remember Modi even being here, much less what was said or done?} then it the article 2023 visit by Xi Jinping to Russia still getting international coverage ?, most of references provided in that article are only Russian and Chinese sources not worldwide. If you think this article should get deleted, then delete that article before since That visit mainly got coverage from the russian and chinese media.
BangashTalib (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Foreign visits should only warrant articles when necessary, e.g. 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East, an instance of a subject that has a sufficient impact and content that goes broader than agreements between world leaders. WP:NOTNEWS is rightfully applicable given that much of the content here can be read in one of the articles cited. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but article needs significant work - I disagree that this did not receive coverage outside of Indian media, a simple search would uncover its prominent coverage in western media. Regarding its significance, given the meeting covered a substantial trade agreement between the two countries and enhanced military cooperation, and was followed shortly thereafter by Trump's reciprocal tariff announcement as well as his 'involvement' in the India-Pak ceasefire, there is a case to be made for the enduring notability of this event. The article needs to be rewritten and expanded, I have started to do so and suggest we apply a template and give other editors the chance to enhance further before deleting. Schwinnspeed (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of international prime ministerial trips made by Narendra Modi#2025/India–United States relations per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The sources are almost entirely news coverage of a current event, and as Ratnahastin points out, this is a pretty routine visit. Only one of the Reuters articles from the "Significance" section has coverage of the visit after it happened, and that's a passing one-sentence mention. The sources from Schwinnspeed are all news coverage from the time of the visit and don't help address that issue. hinnk (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Not a particularly significant international trip, routine news that doesn't need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not every diplomatic visit warrants a standalone article. I don't see sufficient in-depth or lasting significance to justify inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCon

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

I'm not sure this burgeoning media/entertainment conference meets notability guidelines. WP:NEVENT states that events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. The coverage so far seems limited and all published very close to the event, and I'm having trouble finding much more than that already in the article. Since this is the inaugural event, maybe future editions will garner more coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, Events, and Kerala. JTtheOG (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helloo! I'm the author of the page! Just saw this message. Yep, I attended the event a couple of weeks ago. Decided to write about it since it was titled as the first of its kind in the state. From what I remember, it got decent coverage both locally and maybe even statewide, with a pretty good audience turnout. A few news channels featured it too post event. I figured it was worth creating the article now, especially since future editions might get more coverage and notability just like JTtheOG mentioned. Some of the speakers mentioned the next one is planned for December or January on a large scale. I didn’t really rushed into creating the article haha, just thought it’d be good to have it up in case there’s more to add later. Feel free to check it against the notability guidelines and decide if it’s worth keeping or nope :). Thanks! IcedKoffee (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say userfy until that happens. Article is decent quality but doesn't yet meet notability standards. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 16:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That or draftiying are good ATDs. It can give @IcedKoffee: ample time to add more references, specifically about future events, before returning the article to the mainspace. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, makes sense. I’m guessing there’ll be updates if stuff happens again soon, so I’ll keep an eye on it if it pops up in the same city. Also, do you think it’s worth just saving the article for now and maybe checking back in a couple months to see if there's recognition or no? Maybe someone else who knows more about this event or come across it will update it if I forget or can’t get to it lol. Not totally sure if that’s a good idea, just throwing it out there in case it actually makes sense haha (You guys know better!). Thoughts? @Gommeh @JTtheOG :) IcedKoffee (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still say it may be better to userfy or draftify until it meets notability standards. »Gommeh 18:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until WP:NEVENT and notability standards are met. Good luck IcedKoffee on getting this page back to the mainspace in the future! 🙂 Johnson524 16:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Freestyle Ski and Snowboarding World Championships 2027

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

Might just be WP:TOOSOON for an event two years out. More sourcing would have to be found to warrant a standalone article right now. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Austria. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the next of this tournament, it is not a yearly a tournament, and the article will be needed eventually Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sustained coverage of this event yet, just an announcement about the host. Not enough to keep and there isn't enough in the article to draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Dwight D. Eisenhower visit to Spain

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

The entire article was created in a single edit by User:Hectordej7544 ... and it is a fishy article. No in-line citations; only two sources. And both sources are very broad, generic sources (not specific to the 1959 visit). Another editor tagged the article as "AI-generated".

The WP:Verifiability is paramount, and articles need footnotes and citations to provide confidence. In addition, the editor that creates the articles should have READ the sources before creating the article.

I cannot verify if any of the information is valid, and I am challenging the content and the Notability. Noleander (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This visit was apparently a big deal in Eisenhower's presidency. I added a couple of external links that might help. The Remarks Upon Arrival at Torrejon Air Force Base, Madrid is provided via The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify Not adequately sourced to establish notability; his brief remarks are just a primary source. Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower#Europe seems to be a better place for a few sentences here rather than a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 04:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. No NEVENT. No evidence of WP:LASTING effect. FOARP (talk)|
Redirect to Foreign policy of the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration#International trips. Fails WP:NEVENT. There are many other short state visits listed here and it isn't clear why this specific visit would be more noteworthy. MidnightMayhem 14:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one was the first to Francoist Spain, and was a significant diplomatic win for Franco. There's plenty of coverage today about the significance of this particular visit. MarioGom (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as a recent creation without inline citations, this should have been draftified. MarioGom (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, if this boils down to notability: this topic does pass GNG and NEVENT, easily and by any metric. Just an example: [37]. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass WP:LASTING? How does it pass WP:NOTNEWS? FOARP (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources to back my claims:

"El día que Eisenhower, el «artífice de la paz», visitó a Franco". ABC (in Spanish). 9 February 2010.

Martín Alarcón, Julio (8 July 2016). "Bienvenido, Mister Eisenhower: el protocolo de las banalidades". El Mundo (in Spanish).

Palacios, Jesús (5 October 2021). "Eisenhower, el mayor éxito internacional de Franco". La Razón (in Spanish).

"Eisenhower, o el triunfo internacional del régimen franquista". La Razón (in Spanish). 21 December 2021.

"La visita de Eisenhower a Franco: así legitimó EEUU a la dictadura como aliado contra el comunismo". La Sexta (in Spanish). 20 May 2022.

These are all between 51 and 63 years after the event. So definitely not breaking news, passes the 10 years test, and WP:SUSTAINED. This is all enough to pass WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS just does not apply to something that had retrospective coverage 50 years after the fact. WP:LASTING is not even required for an event to be notable (it's a proxy to assess recent events), but anyway, sources deem this visit to be a pivotal moment in Francoist Spain international image, since the Government was pretty much isolated until that era. MarioGom (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus exists in this discussion yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, this is a notable topic but this article was clearly generated using LLMs and Artificial intelligence tools. Sources are potentially just AI making it up, at best there would be a passing mention of the event in those books. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accident at Lac-Bouchette

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find sustained significant coverage in English or French. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Canada. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sixth deadliest traffic accident in Canadian history and the death of 19 people is not a notable event? Many lives and generations were affected by this tragic event, worthy of remembrance. 142.169.16.244 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least merge/redirect to List of deadliest Canadian traffic accidents. I oppose the argument above. Death toll is not notability. However, there are some OK sources. This article needs to be renamed. Mentioned in this article in the Encyclopedia of Canada.... not particularly long, but not passing, and I do think being in a national encyclopedia is a claim to something stronger than a normal book. Also in this academic book [38]. Not particularly long but not passing. There are also many hits on BAnQ numérique (Quebec news archive) past 1993... some is fairly local, so it only moves the needle a bit, but if we have notability establishing sources it would help to build the article. Just a warning for anyone who tries to search BAnQ it has one of the worst search interfaces ever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enduring - sorry - impact, fails WP:EVENT per nom. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see any consensus here. In AFD discussions about accidents, often editors offer arguments on whether or not they think an event was notable. That doesn't matter. Please focus on the sources and whether there is SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Álamo bus accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find sustained significant coverage in English or Spanish except for a single Wordpress blog. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Mexico. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1607)

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

I am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic script about a battle of Tashkent in 1607. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment possibly not a complete hoax? See[39] Jahaza (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources that are already present in the article? Do they exist or are they hallucinated references? (Worldcat doesn't recognise the two ISBNs).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may exist but I couldn’t find them. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the first book, Казахское ханство очерки внешнеполитической истории is available here[40] Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that source says “In violation of the treaty with the Kazakh khans, they tried to return Tashkent, which had been in the hands of the Kazakhs since the end of the 16th century, under their rule. Already in the fall of 1603, according to the "Bahr al-Asrar" by Mahmud ibn Wali, Baki-Muhammed Khan attempted to capture the city, but was defeated by the troops of the Kazakh ruler of Tashkent Keldi-Mu-hammed Khan.” That’s all it says about the 1603 battle. About the 1607 battle it says “In 1607, a vassal of Vali-Muhammad Khan named Muhammadmed-Baki-biy Kalmak managed to capture Tashkent. However, he was not allowed to rule the city for a long time, he was driven out of the city by the troops of Yesim Khan.” That’s it. So we know there was fighting in Tashkent but there is nothing that indicates this was a notable battle. Mccapra (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem like significant coverage.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1603)

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

I am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic about a battle of Tashkent in 1603. It may have happened but it does not seem to have been notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this one has an English language source in the article, although the battle, an attempt to conquer Tashkent, reportedly occurred in Ikriyar. But this leaves me a little puzzled about the wording of the nomination. Jahaza (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it means that when I did a search, the English language source did not come up so I can’t verify that it is indeed a source for the material claimed. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What did you search? I was able to read it on Google Books[41], it's available from the publisher's web site, and WorldCat lists more than 300 libraries as holding it. Jahaza (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks unfortunately the relevant pages don’t show in my Google books view so I can’t verify it. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this comes up on the odd occasion, where refs (and even their articles) are challenged because someone wasn't able to see/read the source to "verify" it, whether it's a web article behind a paywall, or a web page with some other form of restricted access, or physical books and other media, that "can't be found at local library or for sale online", etc., etc. I don't recall that itself being a reason to remove a ref, and delete an article, (I could be wrong). I don't believe it should be a reason either, whether it's having faith in the fellow editor that added it, or just the fact that there are numerous articles on WP, with even more refs that can't be easily and readily accessed, yet there hasn't been (to my knowledeg) any widespread efforts to initiate any massive deletion campaigns because of this. (jmho) Perhaps there's a guideline that covers this, but none have been cited here as of yet. - \\'cԼF 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately in recent times some editors have taken to creating many articles about battles which are completely fictitious. These articles are decorated with pseudo-references to offline books in other languages. Other editors like to create battle articles based on a couple of passing mentions. If I look for sources and can’t find anything that supports what the article says then AfD is the place for it. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize in advance if there are any mistakes in my words — I am writing through a translator. All the articles I have written are based on real books, but the problem is that some of them are not available in open access. So how do I have them? — I bought them. And as for the fact that they are hard to find online — the answer is simple: the history of Kazakhstan develops more slowly than that of other countries.

I write articles, and I know that the way I cited the sources is poorly done — I will try to fix that as soon as I have the time. Онеми (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion is helpful but we need some opinions about a preferred outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 24 May 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 delete‎. Policy/guideline based contributions overwhelmingly indicate lacking in notability. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Panamá Flight 982

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

Sources provided do not establish notability per WP:NEVENT. Perhaps because all persons on aircraft survived (after it drove off the runway). Aircraft driving off runways (after landing) are sort of common, and if there are no deaths, not sure this will ever get much coverage from independent sources. Granted, the crash was recent, and perhaps more coverage will arise in the coming weeks or months. See also essay WP:Too soon. Noleander (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i think i fixed it Grffffff (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grffffff - If you think the article meets the WP:Notability requirements, you should write a paragraph here explaining how it was a signficant event, and describe some sources that discuss the event in some detail.

The line between notable and not notable is not black and white. It can take awhile to get the gist of it; in general: it requires a few sources to talk about the subject IN DEPTH, not merely reporting on it as a minor, passing news event. Also, ask: will people still be taking about the event a few years in the future?

Also: there was a similar deletion proposal here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontier Airlines Flight 3506 ... I cannot see that article now, but did you create that also? If so, it may be wise to become more familiar with the following policies: WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and the essay WP:COOKIE. Noleander (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on Wikipedia for the following reasons: it included in the aircraft getting written off. Grffffff (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it’s also somewhat notable Grffffff (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander Grffffff (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m gonna see if I can use Google translate to share some information these news stories reported. Grffffff (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google translated from one of the sources: “A video circulated on social networks of the moment when the aircraft arrived at the airport for landing before the accident, where it was also possible to verify the adverse weather conditions, with heavy rain.” keep in mind heavy rain. Grffffff (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as it notes an incident that doesn’t occur daily. It involved the loss of the aircraft as well. Grffffff (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Air Busan aircraft that burned down. Grffffff (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Noleanderjust saw it said 12 were injured. https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/avion-sale-pista-isla-colon_1_2189930.amp.html Grffffff (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

dude. Tons of aircraft get written off and don't warrant articles. I think the person up there put it best: will people still talk about this in years? Comparing this to the Tenerife disaster is an extreme and inaccurate comparison. Did 500+ people die here? Also, I understand you're just being defensive here. You wrote the article, wanting to contribute, and now it's at risk of being deleted, and you're freaking out. I have had articles removed. It sucks but I understand notability requirements and at this stage it does not warrant an article. Relton66 (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think it has the potential to stay but the quality is very bad. If the article is improved, I would say keep. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this. This incident is notable enough to warrant an article but would have to be almost completely rewritten due to poor quality. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Grffffff (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not major accident. 122.147.252.162 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes zero sense. Can you explain how? cause I feel like that shouldn't be counted as a vote. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like you no shit. The aircraft was destroyed and people were injured. I think the Tenerife Airport disaster was not a major accident Grffffff (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grffffff: Please stay civil. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

can you not cuss? think about the children you affect 173.245.254.74 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't stop cussing we are going to have this talk again 173.245.254.74 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hey at least everybody survived. 173.245.254.74 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

every body survived ~~keep~~ 173.245.254.74 (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bruh 173.245.254.74 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I do not understand the argument that Air Panama being a small airline does not mean this is not notable. Since it was a hull loss with injuries it clearly is notable enough to have an article. There are similar accidents with little to no injuries and a hull loss that have articles and no one argues they are not notable enough. In conclusion, due to it being a hull loss and passing certain baselines (like the aircraft carrying more than 10 passengers) it should have an article

PS I'm writing this on mobile for the first time, apologies for some visual errors Private User Edgeworth (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteShows no notability, small airline, small accident, 12 injuries on a flight does not automatically determine notability, same thing with fatalities on a flight, just because someone was injured or died does not mean that that it is automatically notable. WP:NOTNEWS
(extra note: apologies for any formatting issues as this is my first time using mobile to edit) Lolzer3000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 8:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Leaning towards delete if not neutral. This article CAN be fixed, but it isn't what I'd call stable. It's not a major event, and thus breaches WP:NOTNEWS. ~~Possibly draftify?~~ Nevermind, don't think this shit neeeds a draft. All or nothing. Scanning the article again, WP:TOOSOON likely applies. Not every. fucking. airplan crash. needs. an article.☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

im trying to NOT have a conflict today plus im telling if you dont stop cussing 173.245.254.74 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you know what? forget it lets just keep to the crash topic fot the fact that you cussed out 173.245.254.74 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one being disruptive by being offended by my and other users cursin'. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 18:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i do not want to get in a conflict 173.245.254.74 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

im just trying to keep this conversation calm and civil 173.245.254.74 (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good compromise is removing the article but mentioning the accident under the Air Panama, Fokker 50 and the accident airport pages. Relton66 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is a runway overun and a hull loss. It had injuries and is being investigated. Zaptain United (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

runway overruns are relatively common. Does every write off of a Tupolev Tu-154, for example, warrant a page? Relton66 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 158.140.182.100 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: runway overruns are run-of-the-mill occurrences. Fails WP:EVENT, particularly WP:EVENTCRIT#4. The likelihood of WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle is minimal. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if it had not resulted in a hull loss, increasing it's notability. Hull losses should be a strong argument to keep an article so I suggest changing your mind Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:. not major accident.Fails WP:EVENT.125.227.26.172 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

wtf dude 173.245.254.74 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

u do not much sense of this plus it is still under investigation and if we delete this now we will never know how it crashed keep 173.245.254.74 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im right Let's hope we keep it 173.245.254.76 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

plus i like planes 173.245.254.76 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why did u call me friend I DONT EVEN KNOW YOU!!!!!!! 173.245.254.76 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What has this "discussion" devolved into? At this point it's clear the only people voting to keep are actual children who think every mishap deserves mainstream attention Relton66 (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Republic of Karelia, I don't know what to say about this discussion. IndoMaja (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is quite unique that in a discussion having a continuous disruptive editing, Relton66 you are personally attacking by generalizing all the keep voters? It would be very helpful to be WP:CIVILITY and not go WP:NOPA that too towards an entire side of the discussion. By the way, what do you mean by using actual children? As an insult remark? Does that mean others are fake or AI? If actual children refers to actual little babies, I am sure they are watching Cocomelon or playing rather than making edits here to be a veteran-diaper-editors of Wikipedia. Aren't we all children as well in many ways? My fellow editor, we are just trying to do our bid here to make knowledge shared for everyone. We should not be tempted to pass remarks or generalize everyone.

What has this "discussion" devolved into? At this point it's clear the only people voting to keep are actual children who think every mishap deserves mainstream attention - by Relton66

. No disrespect should be intended, just edits and love. Happy editing! Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~HM19 Message here; no calls 19:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only said that because of the immature behavior of a lot of keep voters, comparing this accident to one with 500+ fatalities to justify keeping it and frequent use of vulgar language. I don't think anyone is offended other than those acting like children. And did you see the guy above me? Keep because "Because I like planes" "We will never know why it crashed if we delete" "I like it". Tell me that doesn't suggest the writer is under 18. Relton66 (talk) 21:38, 24 May 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.

Coney Island Film Festival

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

I do not see notability for this film festival as the sourcing is local without the depth needed to establish notability. A merger to CIUSA might be merited, but I'm not sold on that either. Star Mississippi 03:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and New York. Star Mississippi 03:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the reviewer who accepted this at AfC, happy to chime in. I will note that this was a rather borderline acceptance but the draft (now article) did a good job of paring down to just containing the independent reviews of the otherwise routine coverage of the event. The Brooklyn Rail's coverage "Brooklyn's Beachfront Romance With Cinema Continues at the Coney Island Film Festival" does contain some of the most independent analysis but the quoted pieces in the article should be analyzed here (source assessment table anyone?) to see the depth of their independent coverage relative to the article as a whole could meet WP:THREE or if the breadth of the coverage makes up for any shortfalls therein. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Coney Island Film Festival has been held annually since 2001 and has received repeated coverage in independent, reliable sources including the Brooklyn Eagle, Time Out New York, Brooklyn Paper, Brooklyn Rail, and MovieMaker Magazine. While the depth of each individual source varies, taken together they meet the WP:GNG threshold and satisfy WP:NEVENT. The subject is clearly verifiable and has maintained public relevance for over two decades. — Albieabbiati (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added sources from NYT [42] and NBC NY [43]. Only the NYT contributes towards WP:THREE, while NBC NY is a routine event announcement. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The Coney Island Film Festival is a local event, and film festivals are common worldwide. Merging with the Coney Island article avoids unnecessary fragmentation per WP:NOPAGE while preserving notable information from existing sources per WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm inclined to agree, in the event of a merge, I suggest merging this to Coney Island USA (the organization that operates the festival) and not Coney Island (the article for the neighborhood). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

California Cup Juvenile Fillies Stakes

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

Non notable horse race with limited reliable sources. The only ones were data sheets from the race, no notable coverage in the press. DankPedia (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Horse racing, and California. DankPedia (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Jonesboro mayoral election

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

Mayoral elections do not have presumed notability, unable to find non-local sources on Jonesboro mayoral election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I argue this article should not be deleted as it makes available this information, serving local people from Jonesboro, Arkansas. Having a working link to this page is also helpful for related pages, and prior to its creation was a redlink in Template:Elections in Arkansas sidebar. This page is beneficial to Wikipedia and its users. User01938 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes in Brussels on May 4 and 5, 2025

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

WP:NOTNEWS, racist and violent football-related riots which happen sadly quite often. Can perhaps be a short paragraph in some other article, don't know where though, but not enough to be a separate article. Got a lot of attention, as these things do, but no indication so far that this will lead to anything WP:SUSTAINED. Fram (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Football, and Belgium. Fram (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article does not describe just another hooligan riot, but a case of significant socio-political unrest in Belgium. 80 people were injured, including children, policemen and a man with serious gunshot wounds. this is very unusual. there have been many political reactions at national level and official commemorations. several foreign media have covered these events, including in France (RMC Sport, La Dépêche, So Foot), Spain (Diario AS) and the Netherlands (NOS), which demonstrates international notability of these events. the argument that we don't yet know whether this will have a lasting impact doesn't hold water, because the impact is already there, widely covered by reliable secondary sources. --GloBoy93 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat ref-bombed, however I've read some of the French articles, this seems like a notable event. There are multiple issues with the article and its structure. The article needs renaming. WP:DMY needs applying correctly for Belgium. Other than issues to address, i'd say keep. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge short summary to R.S.C. Anderlecht–Club Brugge KV rivalry This needs a serious edit to summarize what happened and it's well into TOOLONG territory (neighboring countries mentioning the event in rundown form is unremarkable, especially in the EU), and it can be summarized there as just a mention of the club's hooligans taking things too far. I certainly do not want it deleted, but if the article target is inappropriate I can switch it, no issue. Nathannah • 📮 00:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to above suggested target. There are many instances of sport hooliganism, most aren't notable, this does not seem to be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets all the general notability guidelines. The riots and the reaction to them extend far beyond the 'usual' hooliganism or rivalry between R.S.C. Anderlecht and Club Brugge. They were widely reported by all Belgian media outlets and received significant attention and condemnation from local, regional and national authorities. Jason Lagos (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge short summary to R.S.C. Anderlecht–Club Brugge KV rivalry - fully agree with Nathannah on this. The title should then be deleted as it's an improbable redirect. Giant Snowman 18:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, football related violence is a common occurence. Revisit this in 6 months if there is any WP:LASTING impact. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for few more eyes and to see if we can get more support for ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beni, this looks like a probable No consensus closure, not a closure for an ATD. But it's up to the participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, Yes, looks like it's heading that way. Maybe more eyes will make a change. — Benison (Beni · talk) 00:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oppose redirect as "Clashes in Brussels on May 4 and 5, 2025" would not be a common search term. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 20 May 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. BD2412 T 03:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Hamilton, Ontario municipal election

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a future municipal election, not yet showing sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it would already need an article now.
As always, while we permit articles about future elections at the federal level to exist practically as soon as the public finish voting in the previous one, that's because there's actually substantive stuff to say about them: public polling on the popularity of the incumbent government, tracking changes in party leadership and seat standings, content about political issues, and on and so forth. But we don't generally maintain articles about city council elections this far in advance, because at the city council level all there is to actually say is idle speculation about who might or might not run, and that's all that's present here.
The article, further, is not adequately referenced to show that this is already the subject of any significant coverage as of May 2025 – three of the six footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and two more are from a hyperlocal community blog that doesn't count as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all (but were misrepresented in the citations as coming from a different publication than they really did, until I corrected them). Just one article comes from a real GNG-worthy newspaper at all, which is not enough all by itself.
It also warrants note that even Toronto doesn't have an article already in place about its 2026 municipal election yet, and Hamilton's hardly qualifies as more notable than Toronto's.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the spring or summer of 2026, when there actually starts to be meaningful stuff to say and real candidates filing their nomination papers, but we don't need this to already have a Wikipedia article in 2025. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are fair points. A counter would be to note that the 2022 Hamilton, Ontario, municipal election page was created in September of 2020 – a full 25 months prior to the vote. Each election page is also used to include information on mid-term elections in the term prior to the vote and a by-election is very likely to occur in the coming months. The preliminary information on the page can be updated (it was originally copied from the 2022 page) as the City of Hamilton website already includes information on the 2026 vote. The Hamilton Spectator's coverage of the election has already begun and CBC Hamilton has similarly been publishing articles about possible changes to the city's voting system. As interest in the election begins to pick up, it seems more logical to keep a running record of candidate announcements, possible voting system changes, and issues rather than delete the page and start over again in May of 2026 when there may be a significant amount of information to include. All said, I am content to follow the will of the community on this. All the best. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. The only content here is pure speculation about who could be potential candidates. Once that is removed (as it should as their potential candidacy is based on speculation) there is not much left of the article. --hroest 20:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only 17 Months Away, and the article will be needed even earlier. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think TOOSOON applies in this situation.--User:Namiba 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not TOOSOON in my view. There's also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST to consider. Schwede 66 22:28, 22 May 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.

Bruneian–Igan War

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

Contested Prod without improvement. Other than the single reference listed, searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this event. Searches in A History of Brunei by Graham Saunders did not even see a mention of it. Similarly, nothing was mentioned in Brunei - History, Islam, Society and Contemporary Issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, sources about this war in specifically is rare Syazwi Irfan (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a newspaper column in a short-lived publication isn’t solid enough sourcing for an article about an alleged war. Mccapra (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Death toll is not notability without sustained and in depth sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received coverage from the BBC and Al Jazeera: [44] Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete World-wide flash-in-the-pan coverage is not extended coverage, which is what WP:GNG actually calls for. It's depressing that accidents involving Muslim pilgrims in Saudi Arabia are all too common, but each individual such accident is a datum, not an event of lasting notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received widespread coverage outside of region.--User:Namiba 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 San Martin Jilotepeque bus disaster

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a couple passing mentions in Spanish-language articles about other crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was international contemporary press coverage at BBC [45], Reuters [46], Sky News [47], RTVE [48], DW [49]. There's been sustained coverage in Guatemalan press: 2016 [50], 2025 [51][52][53]. MarioGom (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources don't confer notability. The sustained coverage in each of those articles is, respectively: two sentences in an article about another crash, six sentences in an article listing crashes, two sentences in an article listing crashes, and three sentences in an article about another crash. If they were all like that second one, then I'd maybe be willing to call it borderline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MarioGom. I still interpret this as a persistent historical event based on those short mentions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A year later, there was a memorial service which was covered with a full article, "Victims of accidents in San Martín Jilotepeque are remembered with mass", by Prensa Libre, Guatemala's newspaper of record. In a poor, mountainous country with a history of mass-tragedy bus accidents, the 2013 San Martin Jilotepeque accident was the worst and the baseline for comparison until a worse one this year. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as failing the extended coverage test of WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the non-breaking coverage is significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Argentina road accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Just a random news story that fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a passing mention in an article about a different crash. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Argentina. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify: Based on searches, while the event had a lot of international coverage meeting the standard of WP:DIVERSE, there was no enduring coverage meeting the standard of WP:PERSISTENCE, nor in-depth coverage of the incident for WP:INDEPTH. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Seems to meet some notability, but more work needs to be done on the article. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's been extensive media coverage of the case through the years in Argentinian press: 2021 [54][55], 2023 [56][57], 2024 [58][59]. This year, one year after the case was closed, there's still coverage of conmemorations [60]. It was also one of two case studies analyzed in a 2017 paper [61]. MarioGom (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Between the case study and the commemorations (still "contemporary" coverage but more distanced from the sequence of events), I might be willing to call this one barely notable. PacificDepths, any thoughts on this as the other delete !vote? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose keeping but I lean towards Draft. I see MarioGom improved the article. However, the "why" of how this is notable (in sources above) still is unrecorded. I would also expect to see a corresponding article in Spanish Wikipedia. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's recorded in this AFD, which is all that is required for AFD. The article is well sourced, and It does not meet any draftification criteria. MarioGom (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: MarioGom provided enough sources for the article's subject to meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see notability for this event being established. Tragedies like this are reported all the time, but this is not enough to keep as its own article. Does not show it has WP:LASTING effect like changing legislation. A mere announcement is not evidence of change. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not seeing the lasting impact. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1992 NHK Trophy

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

Non-notable figure skating competition. I had redirected this article to NHK Trophy, but it was reverted. Recommend deletion or forced redirect. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Skating, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I could find nothing significant. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage, only initial news reports and then the follow up news report when the driver died. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Spain. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's been sustained coverage in reliable sources in late 2016 [62], 2017 [63], 2018 [64], 2019 [65], 2021 [66], 2023 [67][68][69][70]. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2016 is breaking news about closing the case, 2017 and 2018 are breaking news about reopening the case, 2019 is breaking news about reclosing the case, 2021 is breaking news about a memorial (but also has significant coverage of the crash itself), the 2023 sources are about the driver's death and the subsequent end of the case, and 2021 (which you listed as 2023) is breaking news about a memorial. The 2021 source is promising, but I'd hope for at least one source that actually demonstrated that it's notable in its own right as opposed to contemporary coverage over a long period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one in 2021 provides non-breaking news in-depth coverage, as you already noticed, and that is sustained coverage:
Costantini, Luca (19 March 2021). "El 'caso Freginals', cinco años de parálisis judicial y con los familiares indignados". Vozpópuli (in Spanish).
The forensic analysis of the case has been published in the Spanish legal medicine journal, which is effectively a primary source, but also an indication of it not being a routine event:
Cabús, Rosa Maria (2023). "Intervención forense en el accidente de autobús con 13 víctimas mortales en Freginals, Tarragona, España". Revista Española de Medicina Legal (in Spanish). 49 (2): 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.reml.2023.03.001.
MarioGom (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple WP:RS found.Sigma World (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this single event merits its own page. Does not have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, it has follow ups on opening/closing of case, but I don't think they establsih notability of the event. Which makes me think it is also not that notable. Based on WP:EVENTCRITERIA, seems to fall under routine news. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A specific analysis of available sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international coverage over several years by reliable sources

Czarking0 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A statement like "international coverage over several years by reliable sources" doesn't come anywhere close to an analysis of sources. Editors arguing to Keep an article have to put in compelling, specific arguments on exact sources that provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there was wide international coverage is uncontested. The fact that there's in-depth coverage beyond routine reporting from, at least, 1 reliable source 5 years later is also uncontested. MarioGom (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Peru bus accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. When attempting to find lasting coverage, I'm only able to find info about other bus crashes in Peru because fatal bus crashes are relatively common. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extensive retrospective analysis of the accident, the investigation and the court case: Herrera, Jocelyn; Loayza, Miguel (29 June 2016). "La muerte siempre está en camino". Somos Periodismo (in Spanish). --MarioGom (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's decent coverage, but it's just one source, and not a reliable one; my understanding is that student publications are considered generally unreliable for anything outside of the school itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this single event merits its own page. Based on WP:EVENTCRITERIA, seems to fall under routine news. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with mario though event criteria is wonky yeah

JamesEMonroe (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the analysis that student publications are inherently less important or not reliable. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing this as WP:Lasting. Numerous accidents like this get reported daily, but if not impacting anything like regualtions or law, then it is not notable. Certainly not enough for a stand alone article. WP:NOTNEWS. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough to pass WP:NEVENT. One debatable source is bro enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DGUSA The Rebirth

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

No notable independent pro wrestling event. Just one source in the article. Quick search shows just a few WP:ROUTINE results. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:SIGCOV ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I put up the article was because this was the revival of Dragon Gate USA under the control of Dragon Gate. My apologies for not including any other sources but I've fixed it. Added a source for the results BTW. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknownuser45266: The sources you added are still not WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV. They are just the results, which I believe comes under WP:ROUTINE ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't think this is eligible for a Soft Delete as there is an unbolded Keep here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Days' War

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

Note tag. Supposed to be historical fact but can't verify it as no page numbers. No indication of significance. Unable to verify it in gbooks, refseek, internet archive. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with the deletion. The event however do exist but the source for it is very lacking and the original article mostly just anti communist fantasy. I've edited it to make it more neutral but still, proper academic source such as university research is hard to find. Dauzlee (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dauzlee: That is the core of it. Normally I wouldnt' sent such an article to Afd. In fact I don't think I've done that before and probably wont do it again. I spent close 4 hours back and forward while I was working in the garden on Sunday and couldn't find a thing on it of worth. I must have looked at it about 8 times and couldnt determine if it was valid or not. I don't think it was a war, more like a massacre or an action but either way I could verify it. I searched for an alternate name perhaps from the opposing side and couldn't find anything there either. scope_creep^Talk 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if this is hard to find coverage for, then it may better to find a page to merge or redirect rather than delete. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no arguments and both a Merge and Redirect were suggested but without target article suggestions. I'd like to ask User:Wcquidditch if they could deletion sort this AFD for Military History, too. One skill I have yet to master here. Thanks in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that there is no deletion sorting page for "military history", just the separate ones for military and history. It was already sorted under "history" (by someone else) relatively quickly, but when I first sorted this I'm not sure how I missed that it hadn't been placed under "military" yet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Kisei

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The page is a record of a tournament, rather than an encyclopedia page. The contest has run since 1977, but there have been no individual pages since 2008. I've put some through PROD, but some have been dePRODed in 2008, 2010 & 2013 (22, 24 & 25). This one (20th) went to AfD in 2007. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Blackballnz (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blackballnz: per WP:BEFORE, what is your assessment of the Japanese sources on various Kisei editions? MarioGom (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I don't read Japanese but would welcome the involvement of someone who does. Of the articles listed above, around half have no sources at all. The rest are sourced to links with similar tournament information, which could not be said to be independent. Many of these articles have no leads. When 20th Kisei went to AFD in 2007, editors said they would work to bring them up to standard. That as 18 years ago, and very little has changed. The articles above relate to the years 1977 - 2007. In recent years, there have been no articles, but all the winners are listed on Kisei (Go). Blackballnz (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. So note for the closer and other participants: someone should assess the existing sources WP:BEFORE deciding here. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 23rd Kisei was prodded and deleted earlier this year. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the pages into Kisei (Go) under new sections. Redirect afterwards. SeaDragon1 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all as suggested by SeaDragon1. It would be great if we can also merge the deleted article! Can be done by undelete. Probably the hard working PROD review team missed something this once. gidonb (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, there are arguments for a Merge but with such a large bundled deletion nomination, I'd like for there to be a firmer consensus. If there is a relevant WikiProject, maybe they could be notified especially if this does become a Merge closure, we could use their help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. MarioGom (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.

Comment. As a Japanese speaker, I had a look at sources. I'm having a hard time finding reliable third-party coverage for the older kisei tournaments online, but I am finding a few news articles on the more recent ones (here's one for the 49th for example: https://www.asahi.com/articles/DA3S16178212.html). Even those are relatively rare though it seems. Erynamrod (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-speaker of Japanese, I could see that the 49th Kisei was recognized as such. If we indeed go for a merge, the editions do not need to be individually notable. Only Kisei. The merged content would strengthen the article! gidonb (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Albanian protests

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

An ordinary protest without much lasting effects, probably fails WP:EVENT A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is now expanded and updated. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing WP:LASTING. It is an event (series of?) that did not have much impact, based on current sources. Protests happen often and are repoted, but not enough for a stand alone article. Could not find a redirect as alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Moondragon21 Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RS:X Youth World Championships

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

The list of championships includes only 13 events, none of which have their own Wikipedia article. This leads me to believe the page may violate notability guidelines. I think it should be merged back into the main article, as it doesn't meet the criteria for a standalone page. However, given the heavy reliance on primary sources, there may be little, if any, content worth merging. Johnson524 06:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can ever reach that conclusion. It is a World Championship formally recognised by the IOC recognised sporting body. To add to this it is the "Youth" World Championship on the same equipment as used in the Olympic Games hence a number of high profile sailors. All the content for this has been on wikipedia for a number of years in templates. As per a previously agreed policy with other editors who requested that the events side is not on the same page as the equipment these event pages for each title were created. The title definately meets the sports notability requirement although I doubt individual event do. I will work more on the referencing but even this is much better than the previous 10 years. I would say this page also demostrates the usefullness of wikipedia as the official website for the RS:X disappeared within 18 months of the equipment not being used as Olympic equipment. The event is no longer held. Yachty4000 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing significant independent coverage indicating notability. Mainly insider publications. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vyry bus–train collision

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. The only lasting coverage I can find is where it's described in one paragraph in an article about train collisions (in Ukrainian). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ukraine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 13 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all coverage may be in English. I would suggest searching for articles in Ukrainian. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I linked a Ukrainian source in my nomination statement as the closest I could find to significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see WP:LASTING. Did this make an impact on something notable? Many of these incidents do not need their own page. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of deaths is not a criterion for notability. There is no lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Jalaun district bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Uttar Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 22+ people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LASTING. It did not lead to a notable impact in say regualtions or stuff like this. I am also thinking of WP:NOTNEWS. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Necrothesp Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ghana. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 19 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LASTING. Stuff like this is reported daily, but not enough to establish notability of the event or for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Drake Passage earthquake

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

Fail WP:EVENT; this is an earthquake with no lasting impact or in-depth coverage unworthy of its own article. Has not caused serious impact or disruption. Some notable aspects of the article suitable for Wikipedia can be merged into List of earthquakes in 2025 as the list has dictated. An article is unnecessary Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for similar reasons. Quake1234 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quake1234 you need to explicitly vote by adding a bolded Support/Oppose or Keep/Delete FYI Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Argentina, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no enduring impact. Mikenorton (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Dora. Any arguments about strength amount to WP:TRIVIA at this stage. Borgenland (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incoming WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments which has taken off recently in AfDs Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge a brief snippet to list 2025 earthquakes and redirect per nom.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some details to the notes section of the table entry for this quake at List of earthquakes in 2025. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a high-magnitude earthquake—the strongest in over 75 years in the area. It caused no damage but did lead to evacuations due to tsunami warnings. Many less significant earthquakes, especially in the United States, have their own Wikipedia pages. Pristino (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pristino, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that notability is based on the sourcing, not how important it feels or whether there are other articles that might also need to be deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: 2018 Hawaii earthquake. It had a lower magnitude that this one (6.9 vs. 7.4) and occurred in an earthquake-prone area as well. No damage was reported. Not WP:WAX, because (1) there was talk of deleting the article, but no AfD was initiated, and (2) it has survived a full seven years on Wikipedia. Pristino (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to take the Hawaii article to AfD. Dawnseeker2000 16:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, here you have the source you are asking for: Montes, Carlos (May 2, 2025). «Magallanes registra el terremoto más fuerte en 75 años por activación de desconocida falla de Scotia». La Tercera. Consultado el 2 de mayo de 2025. It exist in the article and is used to state that what Pristino wrote here. Ingminatacam (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:News article, not an encyclopedic subject. No significant secondary coverage. A merge is unnecessary as a single list entry on the target page is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – No impact from the earthquake. Bakhos Let's talk! 03:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:EVENT, no lasting effect.--Darius (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this was a good candidate for WikiNews; it is not encyclopedic. Dawnseeker2000 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It had strong media coverage and much expectation in Chile (national level) and Argentina (provincial level) regarding a tsunami that was expected. It was felt and caused alarm in numerous settlements including the cities of Punta Arenas, Río Grande, Ushuaia and Puerto Williams. Various scientific enquiries on this unusual earthquake are underway. Ingminatacam (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strongest earthquake in the area in the last 75 years [71]. I would say that's something. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No secondary coverage", my aunt... There's solid coverage of characteristics and emergency response. I don't know where this idea comes from that earthquakes without a death toll are not notable. Have fun enshrining that in a guideline. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No notable impact on people or structures from the shaking or tsunami, not especially scientifically notable, just occurred in a less common area. Others pointed out how it's the largest there in 75 years but that alone isn't enough to warrant its own article. Just another knee-jerk reaction of an article made shortly after the earthquake happened. MagikMan1337 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in sources clearly referenced in the article. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:EVENT, "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". I'm not seeing anything significant published after the day of the earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the news is over. It was a big scare and a few news articles continue have continued the days after. To truly evaluate for its lasting impact we would need among other things to see the upcomming scientific publications on this earthquake. Right now I would argue evidence points towards a lasting relevance by the scare it produced, the apparent impact on the evaluation of hazards reponse and the scientific enquiry that emerged from it. Ingminatacam (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"lasting relevance by the scare it produced", it has only been 10 days and i'm not seeing any English or Spanish language sources cover this event since May 4. A look at the sourcing, nearly all of them were dated on the day of the event, and a simple search couldn't yield more recent coverage (WP:NOTNEWS). Regarding the scientific aspects; seismologists/earthquake geologists will study all sorts of earthquakes regardless of magnitudes or their impact and publish their findings in journals/reports. That cannot be an a criteria for keeping an article. And I haven't seen any papers about this yet so that's WP:CRYSTALBALL assuming anything will be published.

Nearly 70% of all M7+ earthquakes happen in the ocean every year; some triggering tsunami warnings/advisories and lead to evacuations that can last for hours but do not cause significant impact on societies overall. It is WP:INDISCRIMINATE if this article establishes the minimum criteria for a standalone article and encourages more editors to create pages for unworthy events. Not all earthquakes need to have an article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the way you are attempty to apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is clearly very unusual event in southern Argentina and Chile the strongest earthquake in the area in 70+ years and one of the five strongest (Mw) in Chile in the last ten years. For some people in Global North this may seem of little relevance given that it does impact their lives nor their academic interest. This may be just is just as irrelevant to them as the article of random member of house of parliament in Argentina or Chile. They just dont care, but locally it is fully relevant, as I have said before because of number of impacted people (evacuated), the saturated media coverage and the more lasting impact on national hazard warning system and applied research. Ingminatacam (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest earthquake in X number of years does not automatically establishes notability and fulfil the criteria for an article. It is not an unusual event either, where are you getting this idea from? Chile and Argentina are on an active plate boundary which produces frequent earthquake, there is nothing odd about this. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things in Earth Science are odd in the sense you seem to portray. Few if none of the 100+ volcanoes in Chile is "odd", and the same is true for the >9 Mw megathrust earthquakes along the boundaries of Nazca and South American plates. They have occurred for millions of years and will continue to happen.

With regards to the 2025 Drake Passage earthquake it is the most noteworthy earthquake in many decades in that part of the world. That is nothing that can be swept away with an undue claim of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Few earthquakes of this magnitude and earthquakes in this part of the world recieve this amount of media attention causing such ammount of alarm and, judging earthquakes by magnitude (M_w) alone, as I hope you are not doing, is I would say regrettable. There are many factors to ponder in an earthquake, including its depth, potential to cause harm och material damage and the scientific and public interest it may arise. Ingminatacam (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes are always expected in a seismically active zone, it does not mean we create an article for every one of them we feel needs an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of information for every earthquake we think should have an article.

judging earthquakes by magnitude (Mw) alone, as I hope you are not doing, is I would say regrettable, am I judging this event solely on magnitude? No, you did not read my comments right. I have considered a lot of variables in my delete/keep rationale and my judgement considering the low-impact and lack of lasting coverage is delete (evacuations do not count). There has not been any detailed scientific queries yet; if there are any you can recreate this article again in the future. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A single earthquake occurring in a less common area doesn't warrant its own page Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you commentary offer a valid rationale for deletion as that is not sole criteria for inclusion of this article. Besides its relative rarity it caused great alarm and the evacuation of more than 1,800 people on two continents (South America and Antarctica), saturated the news coverage for about a day and it has evidently had an impact on the seismic hazard management and study in Chile. You have to take the whole into consideration. Ingminatacam (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough national and international coverage on RS about the event (BBC, ABC News, RTE, CBS News, New York Times, Reuters, Al Jazeera, DW, USA Today) [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] To meet WP:EVENT, the guidelines say the event should be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". It's a rare event, an earthquake very strong for the area and near the surface (unlike the ones seen elsewhere in South America) [79]. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all routine (obligatory) stories from news outlets on the day of the event. News organizations create short (low effort) posts like these for the potential of advertising clicks. See WP:DOGBITESMAN. We prefer to have extended coverage of events that show more substance and enduring effects. There really isn't much to say about this one right now, but there's always a potential for more substantial sources in the future. We'll just have to wait and see, but these sources don't describe anything encyclopedic at the moment. Dawnseeker2000 13:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not getting media attention, then it fails WP:GNG. We can't make election articles solely based on database entries. Our basis of creating articles is only if someone else wrote about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2007_Santa_Cruz,_Laguna_local_elections to 2010 Laguna local elections, 2019 Majayjay local elections to 2019 Laguna local elections, and 2022 Majayjay local elections to 2022 Laguna local elections. If "Local elections are not getting much media attention", and our standard is WP:GNG, then at the very least the best that can be done is redirect this to provincial-level elections. Granted 2010 and 2019 election articles leave much to be desired, and perhaps it'll be hard to find WP:RS on 2010 elections now due to WP:LINKROT, but 2019 can still be done, and in 2025, Laguna has the most competitive gubernatorial race in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. With only an argument to Delete and one to Redirect, there is no consensus here. I'd like to ask User:James100000 what his opinion is as he is the only other editor to comment but failed to "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete These are minor municipal elections, and I don'ty see the redirects since that would be a complete change of subject. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Majayjay local elections

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

Declined PROD with promise to improve refs. Added references do not indicate anything more than results or routine coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing significant coverage here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Laguna local elections as per may arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:47, 21 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist, hoping to have additional discussion for whether keep/delete or other to have a clear consenus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Mapandan local elections

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

No cited sources cover the election at much length, and was not able to find much through searching. Election for small municipality of under 40,000, and relies on social media sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page author has placed a comment on this discussion talk page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I would like to kindly request that the deletion discussion regarding my article be closed. Since the nomination, I have been able to gather and incorporate additional, verifiable information and reliable sources that I believe significantly improve the article’s notability and overall quality.

I understand and appreciate the community’s concerns raised earlier. However, with the newly added sources and updates, I believe the article now better meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. I am fully open to further suggestions for improvement and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s content and sourcing guidelines moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, IJeskanEditorV1 IJeskanEditorV1 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 Laguna local elections as per may arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck, Mapandan is in Pangasinan. HueMan1 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Pangasinan local elections, then. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Pangasinan local elections. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the changes since the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions