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

2020 Great Duck Pileup

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

Delete per WP:NOT § NEWS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. And there is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, as evidenced by the dates of the sources used in the article. 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. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only get hits on multiple Duck Boat accidents, nothing about this particular event. Interesting piece of trivia, nothing for notability though. There is no lasting coverage, only some from the time of the event. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An almost platonic example of WP:NOTNEWS. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Boeing P-8 Poseidon runway overrun

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

Fails WP:EVENT as does not appear to be any significant lasting effect and was a non-fatal runway overrun with no injuries and a potentially repairable aircraft. No indication of WP:PERSISTENCE. Dfadden (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dfadden (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of lasting notability, the plane is still "being evaluated for return to operational condition", but this was two years ago. I can't image it's still being evaluated... If the article hasn't even been updated since the event, there are likely no further sources to be found. I can't see anything of note in the news past the time of the event, my search brings nothing up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Synd iNNOVATE

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

Non notable event. Spam created by manager (afd) of the event (using a sockpuppet). Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Noting WP:NEWSORGINDIA, refbombed to PR rehashes, primary sources and non mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Happened in 2019 and only covered in one RS, #3 in the article. Rest are non-RS. I don't see any lasting coverage either, nothing found in my search past the date of the event. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Hindu article (Source 3), is the ONLY thing I can find. No proof of notability shown. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Uus Street

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

WP:HOAX and a devious one considering the subject matter and source falsification involved.
First off, the article today[1] is virtually identical to the version created on 26 February 2017 by User:DJ Sturm with two edits, second as IP [2][3]. DJ Sturm is globally locked by stewards for "Cross-wiki abuse".[4]
Massacre of 83 Jews literally in the middle of Tallinn in 1941 should have been fairly noteworthy event in context of Holocaust in Estonia, but google, google scholar, and google books gave no relevant results which didn't seem to originate back to his article.
Breakdown of source falsification:

Hillgruber, Andreas (1989). "War in the East and the Extermination of the Jews". In Marrus, Michael (ed.). Part 3, The "Final Solution": The Implementation of Mass Murder, Volume 1. The Nazi Holocaust. Westpoint, CT: Meckler. pp. 85–114. ISBN 0-88736-266-4., p. 98. - Hillgruber's article can be seen online here. It makes no mention of this massacre. Stahlecker is only mentioned once regarding Riga.
Haakristi haardes.Tallinn 1979, p. 84 - It can be viewed in digitized form in certain Estonian libraries, so I took a look and again has nothing to do the article's subject or text.
Merila, Toomas (1999). The Holocaust in Estonia. Tallinn: Varrak, p. 77., p. 79. - Fake book. Can't be found on Woldcat, Google Books, or Ester (Estonian online library catalogue). Only Toomas Merila who pops up is sports coach.
Quoted in Eugenia Gurin-Loov, Holocaust of Estonian Jews 1941, Eesti Juudi Kogukond, Tallinn 1994: pg. 194 - Book itself does not seem to be fully available in digital form, but it can be seen that pp 178-214, which includes "cited" pg. 194, should be lists of victims[5][6], and are actually available in some form here [7][8] which does not match in any way text it is used as source for, so taking everything account, safe to say that another fake reference.
Nuremberg Military Tribunal, Einsatzgruppen trial, Judgment, at page 209, quoting exhibit NO-2688. - Einsatzgruppen trial records can be seen here. While there are plenty of mentions for Stahlecker and Estonia, none of them mention the massacre or match text in the article. "exhibit NO-2688" does not exist.
"Report Phase II: The German Occupation of Estonia 1941–1944" (PDF). Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-20. Retrieved 2017-02-26. - Again no mention of the massacre. In source Jägala camp is not mentioned in the context of killing local Jews in 1941, but instead then talking about foreign Jews brought into Estonia from 1942 onwards.

Finally I did a little search on what actual historians who have investigated the Holocaust in Estonia have written about this period, and again their descriptions completely contradict the idea of large public massacre in middle of Tallinn.

Anton Weiss-Wendt On the Margins: Essays on the History of Jews in Estonia pp 243-244 (accessible via wikipedia library at de Gruyter [9])

The Estonian case poses a challenge to the generally accepted view of how the Holocaust was carried out in Eastern Europe. Unlike in Latvia and Lithuania, there were no anti-Jewish pogroms or ghettos; no death squads staffed and sometime managed by natives, like the Arājs Commando in Latvia or the Hamann Commando in Lithuania. The daylong mass executions of Jews at the IX Fort in Kaunas or Rumbula near Riga did not happen in Estonia until a year later. Due to fierce Soviet resistance, roughly two-thirds of Estonia’s Jews managed to escape to Russia in the summer of 1941. The remaining one thousand or so Jews were apprehended by the Estonian Security Police, which conducted a pseudolegal investigation into each individual case. Thus, Estonia was spared the atrocities and public humiliation that accompanied the Nazi mass murder of Jews in other East European countries. Most Estonians, if they bothered to think of it at all, believed that justice had been served and that the executed Jews were punished for a reason.

et:Meelis Maripuu THE EXECUTION OF ESTONIAN JEWS IN THE LOCAL DETENTION INSTITUTIONS IN 1941–1942 [10]

As in Tartu and Pärnu, also in Tallinn the arrests of the Jews started immediately after the conquest of the city by the German troops. The lists of the individuals to be arrested, including Jews, were prepared in Tartu already prior to conquering Tallinn. Within three days from the conquest of Tallinn on 28 August the Omakaitse had already arrested 42 “Jewish communists”, 182 members of the destruction battalions, and 150 “other suspicious persons”. Most likely the orders of arrest had been issued by the German military authorities and not by the Security Police and SD. These orders made the Estonian policeman responsible for the arrest of the male Jews. The male Jews were first sent to the political police or to the local police station. Already then they were kept separately from other prisoners. After some days the prisoners were transferred to the Tallinn Central Prison. In the course of the transfer, the Jews were separated from the Estonians and placed in separate cells.

Staberinde (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, Judaism, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berber raid against Vandals

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

Article fails WP:GNG and relies on passing mentions that hardly mention the so-called raid at all. Skitash (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Zeusch Aviation Beechcraft King Air crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and United Kingdom. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sure I understand but could you elaborate how this is any different from the other crashes i mentioned on the See also section? An exact replica of this plane crash was back in 2017 same result and same plane model; 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash. As I said but I also want to hear from other experienced Wikipedian editors on what they think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabyte21 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided some information about previous aviation articles below that were created very quickly, followed by a swift AfD. This one falls into the same WP:DELAY category. 11WB (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident likely resulted in many fatalities, probably in the double-digits and shut down a major airport. Because of that, this article is notable and it does not fall under point 4. Cyrobyte (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four dead, not "double-digits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters. Any decent closer would discard WP:BIGNUMBER arguments before determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Redirect. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON might be worth considering here. The event literally just happened, there's no way of knowing whether or not this will have any lasting coverage or wider impact. As of right now it's a tragic accident that may, or may not, have sufficient coverage in the upcoming weeks and months to justify a standalone article. Send it to draft now for incubation, and put a redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents in the meantime. nf utvol (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very notable event as there has been significant worldwide news coverage on this aviation accident (not just on UK news). Think of the helicopter that crashed in Manhattan earlier this year. Although it was a flight with only a few passengers, it still gained significant news coverage. This one is the same as this. Prothe1st (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all aviation accidents get news coverage, often worldwide especially if there are fatalities, with a burst of coverage in the immediate aftermath of the accident, and maybe another burst when the accident investigation report is issued. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Light aircraft crashes very rarely get any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond that initial news cycle, and it is equally rare to see any WP:LASTING effects (such as changes to aircraft or airport procedures). The article can always be recreated if such continued coverage or lasting effects do occur. But in the meantime, this crash clearly falls under WP:EVENTCRIT#4: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, london southend airport is still closed and will remain closed “until further notice” according to news reports. It has been two days since it’s happened and this crash clearly affects a lot of people such as those travelling or returning to/from holiday from this airport by airlines like easyjet. Also is going to cost easyjet quite a bit of money. So that is also why it further gives this event additional enduring significance to make it a notable event. Also if you read some of the other comments, you can see that someone said it’s the deadliest aviation accident in the uk since the helicopter crash in 2018 in Leicester, and also the deadliest airplane crash since the plane crash in shoreham. Prothe1st (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of a relatively minor airport for a few days, and the associated short-term impact on passengers and airlines, are unimportant with regard to notability. Imagine yourself 10 years from now when assessing their importance. Likewise, being the deadliest accident since the last deadlier one is not in itself indicative of notability! Rosbif73 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable incident, four confirmed dead and airport closed for two days. Lots of significant news coverage. Definitely passes WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This seems to have been moved since the afd discussion was created. This is Paul (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unsure of the policy on this, but the article in question is now called Zeusch Aviation Flight 1. I am unable to comment on notability yet as this article was only created today and then subsequently nominated for deletion 90 minutes later. (Similar occurrences happened here, here and here). I think WP:DELAY should apply to those 3 examples and this AfD. 11WB (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the crash took place less than 12 hours ago, and the article name has changed, along with information being updated regularly, I have added the recentevent tag to the article to reflect this. I think this should be the case going forward for articles created so soon after the event. 11WB (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it should follow WP:DELAY, which says It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable. This should be a merge to London Southend Airport. An article about an event should not have its own article until there is sustained secondary coverage, which it definitely does not at this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*I second this. Redirect (as the information is already there) to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents for the time being, until a clear need for a standalone article is shown. 11WB (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the newer comments for keep below, I am reconsidering my vote. I think in this instance I will withdraw my vote for redirection and change it to keep based on @Harrz's point regarding this being the most deadly UK aviation accident since the 2018 Leicester helicopter crash. 11WB (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents. Light aircraft crashes are rarely notable and there are no reasons to suspect this one will be. Usual caveats apply: in the unlikely event that we do see significant sustained coverage beyond the initial news cycle, or other notability factors come to light, it would be possible to recreate an article at that time. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although it may look like it isn't notable, it is since 4 people are dead, and London Southend Airport had to close for 2 days. Another thing is that the article was just recently created, give it some time! Subbie2010 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It occurred to me that this could, or maybe should, have been created in WikiNews – but I could not find this event reported there. On balance, since this article already exists, I vote to keep – at least for now and we can revisit notability at a later date, after the accident report has been submitted. While other fatal aircraft accidents may not (yet) have their own Wiki page, I am sympathetic to having Wiki pages for such fatal aircraft accidents as a balanced and independent repository of records of such events.

Enquire (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think it is too early to decide since it just happened. It has got a lot of attention for crashing at a major airport. On the other hand, only 4 people died, and it was a smaller aircraft. I don't think anybody famous was onboard. But I am still split on whether this should get deleted or not. Zaptain United (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created rapidly. Whilst I think the accident will likely be notable eventually, at the moment it's definitely too early to rely on preliminary reporting for an entire article. 11WB (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable - being reported worldwide, shut down an international airport indefinitely and there will definitely be lasting coverage as there is an ongoing investigation and this is the deadliest aviation accident in the UK since 2018 (Leicester), the deadliest plane crash in the UK since 2015 (Shoreham) and the deadliest commercial plane crash in the UK since 2008 or 1999 (Biggin Hill or Glasgow - not sure); some of those may be incorrect, if so I am sorry! harrz ^talk 00:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents. No indication that this is anything other than a non-notable accident with minimal loss of life. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Lexington shootings

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Kentucky. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this WP:NOTNEWS example. An unfortunately common altercation with a cop gotten out of hand is unlikely to have lasting coverage. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the church shooting? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine crime, not the subject of sustained secondary analysis. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories, nor should it be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not because of the traffic stop shooting, but because the mass shooting at a church. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good third party sources. Still interest from media. Cover WP:GNG at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sadly seems to be another domestic dispute, but the tone of the article as written now is sensationalist and poor. Nathannah • 📮 20:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mass casualty event that has received widespread coverage. Thriley (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mass casualty event where coverage has been around the globe. Notable enough to keep. Nintenga (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, as tragic as it is, this shooting does not appear to be particularly notable when compared with the list of 30 or so mass shootings that have happened in America in this month so far. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tacky nomination. The victims aren't even embalmed yet. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025. Mass shootings in the United States (as defined) are almost a weekly occurrence. This would fall under WP:MILL coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as received significant national coverage across major news outlets Macbrindle (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Welcome to the U.S.; it's already out of the news cycle. ^EF⁵ 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Flight 1204

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most accidents) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. This is a forgettable incident that only has article because it happened on the same day as Jeju Air Flight 2216 and PAL Airlines Flight 2259. Zaptain United (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanted to keep this article at first but then I realized that it was a minor incident with no sustain coverage passed the initial reporting. When the preliminary report came out, there was basically no reporting of it. That honestly shows that no news website is willing to report on a minor incident. It shows that even when the final report comes out, there will be no coverage of it. This clearly only got a Wikipedia article because it conveniently happened at the same time as a major crash and a minor accident. I am not against redirecting it, but it is clearly not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Zaptain United (talk) 03:13, 14 July 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 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Extent of retrospective coverage is this article in es:Estadio Deportivo and this in The Express Tribune, neither providing analysis but simply listing them as happening among other airline incidents of December 2024. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to minimal impact and reporting. I will add a sentence at 2024 in Norway. Geschichte (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Oslo Airport#Accidents and incidents~~ Sandefjord Airport, Torp#Accidents and incidents. Coverage there is sufficient, there are no indications of ongoing coverage that would lend notability to this incident. nf utvol (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether it even warrants a mention there. Geschichte (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author here, and OK, I think this is really a small incident that didn't need to be a Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohok12 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, at least, can it be a draft? Ohok12 — Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is the original author of this page

Yes, I agree this is just a small incident, but being more recognised due to its date occured

However, can it atleast be a draft? Ohok12 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to become a draft, that would indicate that it has potential to be a future Wikipedia article. What do you think indicates such potential? Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if that was the meaning of being a draft then ok, I think just delete it. Ohok12 (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I don't think it will make an impact on the media when it comes to the report though being upgraded to serious incident. However, after thinking again, I think its potential of recognition seems to be likely, so I think it should be a draft Ohok12 (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: run-of-the-mill minor incident, with no continuing coverage beyond the initial news cycle. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, it has upgraded to serious incident (on 18th March 2025), but still considered as unnoticeable due to lack of coverage. I still respect your point and that's the fact. There are many crashes that I think not even being mentioned in the media, but still having a page for it. Ohok12 (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore original redirect to List of KLM accidents and incidents § Notable incidents without fatalities. I agree with other participants' arguments that the incident probably doesn't merit an article in its own right. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, I have no issue with it Ohok12 (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this condition, this article will likely be deleted in the coming days. I also understand why this article was nominated for deletion and have more understanding of Wikipedia rules and the function of "draft". I apologize if this has caused any impact on the Wikipedia community, as I have only known these things for a short time. At the same time, I also thank those who have contributed to my articles in the past. I will now convert it to a draft (because I want it to at least reflect my efforts) before this is deleted. Once again, thank you for everyone's contributions to this article.Ohok12 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colomi 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. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present), Route 7 (Bolivia), or Colomi. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Bolivia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Joquicingo 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. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present), Joquicingo, or possibly an article for the highway if it is independently notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Mexico. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of traffic collisions (2000–present). Moondragon21 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Indian strikes on Myanmar

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

This article is made up on current news articles.. Violates WP:NOTNEWS and clearly will leave no long lasting historical significance.. Can be also merged within United Liberation Front of Asom. WinKyaw (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Myanmar and India. WinKyaw (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTNEWS is misinterpreted here as it discourages day to day news and transient events and topics without ensuring relevance however the attack was a significant one as it was conducted in the territory of Myanmar.With the reference of historical significance, articles like the 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar exists which initially started off as news based but later evolved to standalone historical events. A change in the article name might be a topic of discussion if needed

Legion of Liberty (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm the article name should be changed cause this isn’t Myanmar vs India.. But the fact that India didn't claim they attacked ULFA-I camps makes it difficult to keep the naming and harms neutrality. 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar was a confirmed operation by India. Where as this one was clearly denied.

But clearly I see this topic won't last longer than 3 days, irrelevent as days passes unless it leads to something big soon which is unlikely. WinKyaw (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are other examples of such cross border attacks like 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan , where Pakistan wasn't the target rather the baloch militants inside it so that might be a more accurate type of name that can be applied to this article and for the second point made , Operation Outside the Box this attack which was made by Isarel on Syria was denied by Israel until 2018 , so wikipedia doesn't require offical confirmation for the coverage of an well covered incident by sources of different medias , as WP:V and WP:NPV.

An cross border strike by a nuclear armed state which is again seen after the last major strikes 10 years ago definitely hails notability and even if it vanishes from the headlines , in future the people who revisit the article for info and also as per WP:NEVENT if a event recieves non-insufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources , then it proves the notability as well. I'm ready to negotiate the article name. Legion of Liberty (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Legion of Liberty's argument. AHI-3000 (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Coverage is recent and largely routine reporting of alleged military activity with no enduring notability & I strongly believe it lacks long-term significance and appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then there are several drone strike articles available on wiki despite having a lower notability than this event. Such an example is - 2025 Waziristan drone strike.An covert cross border strike is notable enough if it is covered by several medias as far less notable drone strike articles are available on wiki. Legion of Liberty (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: agree that this is WP:TOOSOON to determine. Most other events like this are just additions to existing articles like Spillover of the Myanmar civil war (2021-present), or United Liberation Front of Assam. It's possible it becomes significant but as far as I can tell all the sources are covering the same routine details EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary that different stories get mentioned in different medias however what is necessary is the coverage of the incident WP:SIGCOV.The incident is not a regular crime or Insurgency incident instead it involves a "not regular" cross border strike. India does not strike locations in Myanmar daily.The incident is not a spill over of the Myanmar civil war either and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE notes that a notable subtopic can be a article. This event has greater notability than 2025 Waziristan drone strike where such incidents are far more common than the ones here however they still survive on the notability of Wikipedia so I think this article can do the same with higher notability than them. Legion of Liberty (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It is also too early to create an article on this subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PAL Airlines Flight 2259

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

Non-notable accident. All that happened is the airport closed for 90 minutes. This is a pretty common occurrence throughout Canada and I can, if required give several examples, one that affected former prime minister Stephen Harper ("CADORS report for Kenn Borek (GKBP)". Transport Canada.).

While Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, in particular (Airline and airport articles, is just advice on what should be included it is a reasonable guide to inclusion. There is no indication in the article that the accident meets any of the guidelines. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT given the complete absence of continued coverage or lasting impact on anybody. There was a rough landing, and it was slightly dramatic, but nothing I'd expect to be even worth mentioning a few months after the accident. All the coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and (best I can see) didn't even continue into 2025. I don't see a point in even mentioning this at the PAL Airlines, where the information is present but tagged for being undue. I also don't see a point in mentioning it at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, where it's mentioned in a sentence. (IMO both mentions should be removed, but I won't do that while the AfD in in progress) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 16:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About any mention in 2025, I think it is clear that if the Transportation Safety Board of Canada released any news about it, it will be mentioned again. I agree with you that I failed the Wikipedia notability, but I also agree with User:SportingFlyer that, like I said, it will be mentioned again when it is newsworthy. As they're still investigating, I think we should wait until they finally released their report, and see how the media react. Ohok12 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the incident itself is absolutely newsworthy, and you're quite right that there will likely be some, limited, coverage when the final report gets released. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. To keep this article, I'd want sources some distance from the event itself that analyse the impact it had on the world. So sort of beyond an "X government released Report Y that said the accident was caused by Z". What does the accident mean for the world? Did it cause any major changes in laws or regulations, did it kill several notable people did it have implications for international relations, did it achieve any form of cultural significance? A simple incident like this... they don't typically tend to get sources that give that sort of coverage. Never say never, of course, but this particular incident wasn't intentional, nobody died and the newspapers lost interest very quickly. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 22:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PAL Airlines and keep a mention here. Also, if this becomes newsworthy again, it should be able to be quickly restored. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the author, for me, the aircraft suffered substantial damage, which basically has followed the second rule of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents: "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or". Ohok12 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think landing gear failure incidents have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Whilst I think the RED Air one is just notable enough to be kept, I don't think this one is. 11WB (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading more comments, I have decided to affirm my own comment as a delete vote. 11WB (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This article is not notable at all. It has no sustain coverage. It was a minor accident with no injuries or fatalities. I have not seen any reporting on this accident since December. Zaptain United (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I can’t compare this with fully-investigated cases, as the TSBC didn’t release any piece of information about this, we cannot ensure is this REALLY unnoticeable or not. In addition, I don’t think this just some minor incident, as with that said, JetBlue Flight 292 and Air Serbia Flight 324 should also be minor incidents. However, like you have said, I agree with you that this has no sustain coverage and also I didn’t have any information about it since December 2024. With the fact that this is Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, it is apparent that your statement is valid in most of the points. Ohok12 (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it's probably time for a broader discussion of what makes an air crash notable as more important incidents don't lead to the complete loss of the aircraft. I don't think this quite reaches the bar yet but there also hasn't been a final investigation. SportingFlyer T·C 10:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEVENT, An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, it still kinda have some question about it, Example:

- When comparing Flight 2259 and Flight 324, they popularity were the same. The difference is that Flight 2259 was more serious than Flight 324. I don’t know do you agree with that, but that just my opinion.

- There were literal crashes (such as Azimuth flight A45051, Red Air Flight 203) were considered as “unnotable” while some incidents (such as AS Flight 2059, Ryanair 4978, Delta Flight 89) were known as notable. It makes a paradox that some unusual, but minor issues were notable, and serious issues were not noticeable. In my opinion, like User:SportingFlyer has said, we should make a discussion whether a plane incident is notable. Ohok12 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEVENT is incredibly ambiguous about these airline incident edge cases, hence the need for a discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, how is WP:NEVENT ambiguous for events like this? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Examples:

- Delta Air Lines Flight 89, I don't see any long-lasting impact for this incident (like no one died, the media found it no more newsworthy, it just like a silly mistake though having the expert response)

- CommutAir Flight 4933, I don't know why is this approved to be page as is just a normal incident (like overshooting the runway is the thing that many of us saw, though it was written off)

- JetBlue Flight 191, until now, I don't why is it still count as the plane wasn't damaged, only having personal impact

I think this is enough to see the confusion of the Wikipedia:Notability (events). If it isn't because of it, then it may be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Ohok12 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is because there is sustain coverage in JetBlue Flight 191 and CommutAir Flight 4933. Delta Air Lines Flight 89 is an article I am confused managed to stayed up because it has no sustain coverage and there seems to be no long-term impact. But there were 3 AFDs which said to keep the article. That one at least got a lot more media attention to this one here. Zaptain United (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: It's ambiguous because at most AfDs, what's important is the type of coverage something receives. With air crashes, people interpret the overall significance of the event, which is more subjective and is leading to odd results, especially as more . "It can't be notable because no one died, it was just a hull loss, nothing changed as a result of the crash, et cetera." Aer Lingus Flight 328 is a good example of this - in that incident a plane actually crashed, had coverage for years afterwards pre-internet, and wasn't kept, but Delta Air Lines Flight 89 has been kept three times (I've !voted keep twice, but neither of them were purely policy based) in spite of only having apparently a couple weeks of coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nowdays, I cannot understand how normalised plane crashes are being. I have to deal with two nominated pages so far (the second one is KLM Flight 1204, but this one has a fair number of reasons to be deleted or to be a draft). This really need to be discuss like can anybody sure that the pages we've all been creating really noticeable? Are every fatal crashes really noticeable (like accident in aviation is too common right now). Did the crash got back its recognition after the report. This really needs explanation. Ohok12 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see some inconsistency in non-fatal accidents having articles but for this accident there has not been any sustain coverage since December. I know there is no report for any new site to write about, but they could do some retrospective reporting by interviewing a passenger or just reflecting back on it. This was reported on for literally two days. Zaptain United (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Stanfield International Airport#Accidents and incidents, as is standard for relatively minor incidents such as this that do not have lasting coverage. This is, in my opinion, a good alternative for deletion, as it does allow for the restoration of the page if there is additional information or coverage in the future. nf utvol (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for still trying to keep this page in some way. Ohok12 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of this page, I don't disagree with the fact that this incident didn't meet 100% of the Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, so many experienced editor wants to delete this page. For me:

- Though I do want to keep this page, but if it because of the community good, I agree to delete this page or making it as a draft.

- I'm also an inexperienced editor, which can made many mistakes during the creation.

Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that I want to delete this page:

- The Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents describe very vaguely about notable incident.

- This is an undergoing-investigating case, so we can't sure whether this is really a normal incident or a serious incident.

With that, I think we should create a talk page or a discussion to sort out normal incident and notable incident.
Also, thank you for the contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohok12 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Stanfield International Airport#Accidents and incidents, where this otherwise insufficiently-notable-for-a-standalone-article incident is already properly covered, making a redirect appropriate and desirable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but ok, that's a point Ohok12 (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this condition, this article will likely be deleted in the coming days. I also understand why this article was nominated for deletion and have more understanding of Wikipedia rules and the function of "draft". I apologize if this has caused any impact on the Wikipedia community, as I have only known these things for a short time. At the same time, I also thank those who have contributed to my articles in the past. I will now convert it to a draft (because I want it to at least reflect my efforts) before this is deleted. Once again, thank you for everyone's contributions to this article.Ohok12 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you've copied the text of the article to Draft:PAL Airlines Flight 2259. There are several problems with that:
1. Drafts are intended as temporary storage for likely future articles, and will ultimately be deleted if not "promoted" to articles; see WP:DRAFT for details..
2. Copy-and-paste moves do not preserve the edit history of the page, which would be necessary for attribution should you ever attempt to move the text back to mainspace, as explained at WP:ATTREQ.
3. You've preempted the results of this deletion discussion, contrary to WP:DRAFTNO #2.
Copying the text to a page within your userspace would be a better option if you just want to keep a copy of your own "for posterity". Rosbif73 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohok12 You had absolutely no reason to apologise at all! It's ok! You created an article, which is an incredibly hard thing to do as a new Wikipedian and unfortunately it was nominated for deletion because somebody believed it didn't meet certain notability requirements. This is normal!

Rosbif is correct in that you definitely should have waited for the result of this AfD before doing anything. Edit history is very important. Fortunately, as you copied it the original, this version remains. I would recommend following the instructions at WP:HOWTODELETE#Pages you created yourself for the new draft version you have made, this way you can avoid getting into any hot water! 11WB (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys, I am actually bursting into tears because for the trouble I made in KLM Flight 1204, and it was forgived. Also, thanks for the advice. (I used to be cyberbullied when using Discord, that's why I'm really sensitive of being reported) Ohok12 (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't worry! I have notified Liz about the mistake regarding KLM Flight 1204. I am sure this will be sorted and you won't be in any trouble from it! In future, I would really recommend having a look up of some of the procedures around specific areas of Wikipedia, such as here at WP:AfD. It is a steep learning experience, but you'll definitely get the hang of things eventually and you are always welcome to ask for help! 11WB (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow-up re the KLM situation. I am unsure whether an administrator is required for the redirect reversion. If this is something a non-admin can do, this would be great to know for future reference (and how to do it also!). 11WB (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimisha Priya

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

Lacks encyclopedic value or long-term significance, being just one of many similar cases. Created based on news headlines and WP:RECENTISM. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CRIMINAL, and known solely for one event. Additionally, blood money cases are not new in Kerala, let alone India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Events, Yemen, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's been reported on since 2024-07-05 (for more than a year now), definitely not recentism 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've also found this article from the BBC from 2023 ^[1], from First Post in 2022 ^[2] (though I'm not familiar with this source, so happy to be corrected if this article is not reliable). Plus doing a google search filtering by date quickly turns up dozens of articles about the case from as far back as 2020 in predominantly Indian news sources (I am not very familiar with Indian news sources so don't know which ones are more reliable than others). So clearly the case is notable enough to merit a page and it is not a case of WP:RECENTISM. Per WP:CRIMINAL merging the biography into the page for the crime committed or the case, but it is not obvious to me what page this would be merged in to. Perhaps renaming the article might be appropriate, but otherwise a clear keep for me. Giuliotf (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is rather sustained and reflective on societal impact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above and there is some coverage about her outside the crime in reliable and independent references to the subject. So, it meets general notability guidelines and significant coverage. Fade258 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep In addition to the points made above, it should be noted that while Nimisha Priya is from Kerala, the alleged murder took place in Yemen, not India as the nominator seems to suggest. Additionally, she is scheduled to be executed in three days, which may initiate further coverage. This also causes me to question the timing of this nomination for deletion. - Ike Lek (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above responses. The subject's coverage is recent and from reliable sources to warrant an article, and is likely to only increase in the coming days. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes notability criteria as mentioned in Wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This is about blood money in Yemen, not India. This story has been reported worldwide. No good reason to delte it. Colbfi (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as coverage on her topic has been increasing on and off recently and is expected to become more prominent over the upcoming days. Kaeez06 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as coverage of her case has been all over the internet in the United States where I live, far from either Yemen or India, indicating worldwide interest in the case. Clearly notable. Riverhugger (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M53 motorway coach 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. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or M53 motorway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Lasbela 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. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or at Bela Tehsil if it's actually a significant event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Turkey bus crashes

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, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered with two entries at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or separately at articles for the locations of the crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Turkey. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first discussion. If not then merge with List of traffic collisions (2000–present). Moondragon21 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baudhayana Jayanti

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

Does not meet GNG and no result when searched about the festival on google Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Hinduism. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, search didn't yield anything Laura240406 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think keep, but move to just "Baudhayana" - though not sure about the sources. Baudhayana Jayanti as a festival seems not notable, but the person Baudhayana seems notable mathematician - some google books search returns details. e.g. [[11]] Asteramellus (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Kazakhstan Futsal Cup

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

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Kazakhstan Futsal Cup- non-notable season. No prejudice about creating a general article Kazakhstan Futsal Cup article if that meets WP:GNG, but the season articles do not. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Kazakhstan. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, during the last AFD for the 2014 Kazakhstan Futsal Cup, sources were found about the cup - so if there's enough sources, we should have one page, not individual ones. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and the deletion of the 2015 season's article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman, Texas bus accident

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, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Coverage following the event is only further breaking news. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present), U.S. Route 75 in Texas, or Sherman, Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United States of America, and Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Uttarakhand 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. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or Dhumakot. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, India, and Uttarakhand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:NEVENT. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. Accident which caused 32 deaths is not something that always happen. It was also discussed throughout the nation well as indicated by the sources.Thilsebatti (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. The only mention of the crash that I could find post-June 2022 was a brief mention in October 2022 in a list of road accident in Uttarakhand from Al Jazeera. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Washuk 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. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or a brief mention in Washuk. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rakhyut Mid-Air Collision

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

This seems like a normal incident that shouldn't have its own article, per WP:AIRCRASH. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Oman. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tragic accident, but there appears to be no lasting coverage that contributes to notability. Not to mention that this might be the most poorly cited article I've seen short of one with no sources at all (four sources right back to Wikipedia, and one is to an online forum?). nf utvol (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to cast a vote on this AfD, but I think it should be noted by those who do that this article was created and nominated for deletion less than 3 hours apart. (This article does have issues with how it's written and referenced regardless.) 11WB (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 California's 32nd State Assembly district special election

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

Also nominating the following:

Building off previous consensus that state legislative special elections are not inherently notable. I don't see a reason why any of these three pages rise above your average state legislative special election in terms of notability. I'd support a redirect to 2025 United States state legislative elections#California, though merging to a newly created 2025 California elections page could work if someone was willing to make that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 United States state legislative elections#California. In addition to nom's statement, special elections to US legislative seats are likely not notable on their own (although they may become notable in retrospect). --Enos733 (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Generally speaking, most state legislative special elections are likely not notable enough to have their own page, they should still be covered somewhere. Until there is an appropriate page to put the information though, I would not support deleting any of the pages, as only truly unimportant information should be removed from Wikipedia entirely. Consider this a response to all the deletion nominations of similar pages. Atriskofmistake (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per aboveMetallurgist (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Connecticut House of Representatives District 40 special election

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

Also nominating the following:

Building off previous consensus that state legislative special elections are not inherently notable. I don't see a reason why any of these three pages rise above your average state legislative special election in terms of notability. I'd support a redirect to 2025 United States state legislative elections#Connecticut, though merging to a newly created 2025 Connecticut elections page could work if someone was willing to make that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These don't need to be deleted but they do need to be merged. We need to keep the content but we do not need stand-alone pages. SportingFlyer T·C 09:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Metallurgist (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Eulersidentity (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Delaware Senate District 1 special election

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

Also nominating the following:

Building off previous consensus that state legislative special elections are not inherently notable. I don't see a reason why any of these three pages rise above your average state legislative special election in terms of notability. I'd support a redirect to 2025 United States state legislative elections#Delaware, though merging to a newly created 2025 Delaware elections page could work if someone was willing to make that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Delaware. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To 2025 United States state legislative elections#Delaware where this is mentioned at target per WP:Cheap and WP:ATD Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Metallurgist (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election

AfDs for this article:

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

Article history shows some evidence of being made into a redirect and being undone, redirect is possible ATD.

WP:TOOSOON as an election for a province that will take place in over four years, just because something will very likely happen does not mean it needs a page yet. Sources cover events in government, rather than the election itself Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Jammu and Kashmir. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FUTURE This election is at least 4 years away. Election date is not yet announced. — Maile (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - title starts with "Next" – Ike Lek (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a valid reason, the "Next" general election has a page in several countries. Coverage of the election should be the focus for rationale Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Emerging Nations World Championship play-off stage

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

This is a just results listing of very minor teams playing. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. No mainstream coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2018 Emerging Nations World Championship#Play-offs. Mn1548 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - unnecessary for coverage of the tournament to be split into three articles, this and the group stage should be merged into main article. EdwardUK (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons given for the original AfD:
2018 Emerging Nations World Championship pool stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mn1548 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is missing most of the rugbyleaguebox details and all of the links to match reports - merging would preserve the page histories when copying this info across. Some minor clean-up will be needed to check that the transclusions to International rugby league in 2018 work after the merge as there are a few repeat fixtures such as Solomon Islands/Hong Kong. EdwardUK (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ledenice offensive

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

Extremely limited coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Iran–Israel war as a broadly supported ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Iran threat of Strait of Hormuz closure

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

While i understand why this page was created initially, given the outcome of the iran-israel war i'm not sure if this needs to exist as an article anymore. The effects are negligible as the strait was never closed and the entire article centers around possibilities that never happened. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good afternoon. Although the Strait of Hormuz never closed, it was more of a threat, so if you want, I'll propose two ideas. You can choose which is best. Could the entire article be deleted or would it be placed in the Israel-Iran war section? Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran–Israel war. A certainly notable topic, but would likely fit best into here rather than have an entire separate article about it, especially if it was just a threat. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should also be added to the Israel-Iran War article, because since there was a threat and it didn't happen, I think it would be best. If the Strait of Hormuz had really been closed, it would have had to stay there, since it wasn't blocked and didn't happen, well, well. I think it's good to add it to that Israel-Iran War article. Axel1382004 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran-Israel war It is notable that such a threat was made but probably doesn’t need a whole article a merger is the best option. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think this is the best option. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Borgenland (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran–Israel war. Notable within the development of the war but not warranting a article unto itself. Eulersidentity (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran–Israel war. Notable within the development of the war but not warranting a article unto itself.

duplicate, didn't properly vote previously Eulersidentity (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the war article seems sensible. It was a credible threat, but did not pan out. Metallurgist (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a news story, not relevant as an encyclopedic article. JohnMizuki (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep this topic has the capability to have a separate page, in the meantime it can be merged into a relevant article too. 110 and 135 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 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.

Pumpkin Roll

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

A background search and the external link reveal occasional local news coverage and a small mention on NBC/ESPN. Absolutely no in-line citations in the article, and struggles with encyclopedic tone, instead reading reflective. Much of the information seems trivial. A mention and brief explanation in Chagrin Falls, Ohio seems more appropriate. A local high school's tradition doesn't really warrant a Wikipedia article, even if well-known locally. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Trouble Lives On protest

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

The article has only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Per the WP:ROUTINE section, "Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." The article only lists cities that the protest in planned to happen. Possible WP:PROMO violations. There is nothing here that cannot be summarized in an article on Protests against the second presidency of Donald Trump. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just like that other one. Aneirinn (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I !voted to leave the aforementioned other one be for procedural reasons as it was sent to AfD just hours before the protests started, so it was a clear case of WP:RAPID/WP:TOOSOONDEL to me. This one, on the other hand, is still a couple of weeks away, so it's simply WP:TOOSOON. I say incubate it so the author(s) can keep updating it and submit it for review at a later date when it's more possible to assess its notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this completely. Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing eith wrong with this page or the info on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5D10:DB00:3539:C6C5:9865:4425 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Vanilla Wizard. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should be purging Wikipedia of an article with 30+ sources about a major demonstration being held this week. If tens of thousands of people are expected to participate in hundreds of locations, then this is clearly about a notable topic. I also don't think draftifying for a few days is necessary, but sure if that's the route editors prefer. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page up. I see no valid reason to delete the information about protests in the name of John Lewis! 70.22.242.87 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Champions Cricket League

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

No evidence this event passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV on independent reliable sources other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 16:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Espinar 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, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or Yauri, Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It hasn't even been a year since the last AfD. – Ike Lek (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:2MONTHS, If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. Since the last discussion was closed as no consensus seven months ago, there is no problem with renominating the page for deletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Khairpur 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, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or an article about this bypass if it's notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I can't not ask what your rational for saying "high-casualty bus crashes are common" is. Surely you have some reasoning behind what on the surface can seem like an absurd statement? – Ike Lek (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ike Lek "Why Deadly Bus Accidents Are So Common in Developing Countries", an article published by Time magazine last year probably has the answers you're looking for. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 08:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable event, worldwide coverage and high casualties makes it notable. Bloomberg mentioned it as Pakistan's worst road incident. Behappyyar (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. Post-2015, I'm only able to find short passing mentions of the crash (which are not enough to establish notability): [12]^[3] [13]^[4] [14]^[5]. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Geeta Pandey (5 December 2023). "Nimisha Priya: The Indian nurse from Kerala on death row in Yemen". BBC. Retrieved 13 July 2025.
^ "Murder and blood money: The case of Nimisha Priya, the Kerala nurse on death row in Yemen". Firstpost. 24 March 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2025.
^ In November 2014, more than 50 people were killed when a bus collided head-on with the truck near Khairpur district. The bus was carrying passengers from northwestern Swat valley to Karachi.
^ Two months ago, at least 50 people died when a bus collided head-on with a goods vehicle near the city of Khairpur, in the north of Sindh province.
^ Nov 11, 2014: Fifty-eight people died following a collision between a passenger coach and truck near the Theri Bypass in Khairpur.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golaghat highway 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. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or possibly an article about the location. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, India, and Assam. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a WP:BREAKINGNEWS. Already listed to List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2024.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 FA Women's Premier League Cup

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

Contested redirect a couple of times without the addition of a single in-depth reliable source. And Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why this article should be deleted? This is one of many cup competition seasons recorded on here that have not had this action put towards them. Why is this particular article causing an issue? It is sourced with two reliable sources (The Football Association Website and a fan created site which has been used as a source for other articles of that era), which lists all the results and a detailed record of the final. This is consistent with all other seasons of the Premier League Cup which have not been flagged in this manner. This page was previously a redirect to the main Premier League Cup page, which was not a suitable arrangement as it did not contain the detail which has been expressed here. This is also part of the chain of articles that allows people to navigate through the history of the completion season by season, both through the links at the top of the article and at the bottom of the page.

This article cannot be deleted, as it is a key part of the history of the Premier League Cup Competition. If there is anything further that needs adding to it, or any amendments that need making to it, please let me know so these changes can be made. Thank You. Adam Salter (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is above. Zero in-depth sources from independent, reliable sources. Right now it has one source from a primary source (not independent), and one fan-based source (not reliable). Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if there aren't currently enough sources currently attached to this, then I will find more to use as citations to back up the article.

Are you able to elaborate further what is classed as 'in depth' for a source, and how great a quantity of sources are needed to deem this article acceptable? Adam Salter (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you please elaborate on how the Full Time FA Source is not an Independent Source? What link or conflict have you established between it and Wikipedia? Thanks. Adam Salter (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FA Women's National League Cup#List of seasons and finals as possible search term. Giant Snowman 10:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a redirect preferable over the actual article in this instance? Adam Salter (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as has already been explained above (and which you seem to acknowledge yesterday), there are not enough in-depth sources. See WP:SIGCOV. Redirection is an alternative to deletion, see WP:ATD. Giant Snowman 13:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added plenty of sources to the article though, including stats website, newspapers articles and matchday programmes. Is this not acceptable? Adam Salter (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stats websites and match reports are not SIGCOV. Please actually bother to read the links I send you, I'm trying to help. Giant Snowman 15:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your help this, honestly. And I know you have to deal with a lot of these discussions and a lot of these similar arguments with other pages, so thank you. It's just a bit confusing for me, because I've read the SIGCOV, and to me it describes a source which is an all encompassing one for the article, rather than just a few side mentions the other sources may have had. I therefore thought the FA Full Time Site was exactly that, as it covers all the results of the competition for that season. It wasn't a match report written at the time, it's a page of information that does describe the Final, and then lists all of the results for the year at the bottom. I assumed this was a Verifiable Source, and the way I had interpreted it was that this would be my primary SIGCOV Source, and then everything else would be Secondary to supplement it. Apparently, the argument is that the FA Full Time Site is not independent from Wikipedia, which I cannot fathom. There is no conflict of interest here with the FA, they aren't going to financially benefit from this, are they? Why is the Full Time FA Site not a SIGCOV source? Adam Salter (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this competition was indeed covered in the media as evidenced by the sources currently in the article. The FA Site isn't SIGCOV because it's not independent of the competition, but competitions are a bit odd because one of the things which makes a competition notable is continued routine coverage, which is exactly what is in the article. Not all of the sources are good for notability including the matchday programmes, but there's more than enough here to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 08:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note to the closer, when this was nominated there were only two sources, neither of which were good. SportingFlyer T·C 08:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 Metre World Cup

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

No evidence this event meets WP:GNG, and thus requires a separate article. The table of events already exists at 8 Metre#World Championships, and this is more than enough information for Wikipedia. We do not require a separate article that just lists tonnes of almost entirely non notable winners Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability shouldn't be questioned it is a World Championships approved by World Sailing. Wikipedia is full of minor none olympic sports national and contentinental sailing. Even sailing has pages with one reference and 5 competitors from recent regional games yet this is getting questioned.

In regards to whether the page should be on the 8 metre page. In the past it the data sat on three pages "sailing medalists page", "equipment page" and "event page" they also sat on unreference template. The descision by those contributing which I didn't necessarily agree with was that the boat page was about the equipment and the event page was about the event. The medalist page was so big it broke templates.

The events table referenced is a reduced version of what is on this page and will be deleted. To be honest the event page is work in progress and needs improving interms of referencing I will try and work on this over the weekend. Yachty4000 (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "8 Metre World Cup" exist? Yes or no? Geschichte (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Yes sailing has drifted between using the term "world cup" and world championships here is a link to the 2025 edition [[15]]. The World Cup is awarded to the overall winner. There are two sub further trophies for the first of various age of boats. This is why it better on another page as most none sailing geeks :-) would incorrectly read the winners from the class page. But this is the Sira Cup which is for the older boats.

Seriously why are we discussing notability of official world championships its this kind of discussion that makes me question why I contribute. Still lots of improvements todo with article which I will work on. Yachty4000 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free America Weekend

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

(completely rewrote) This page has a source have were deprecated AND cannot be trusted by the wiki on UFO topics, it is also written like a advertisement, with wording like "*city name* has planned a protest, it feels sort of like a advertisement you would see online in a forum.Shaneapickle (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per WP:RAPID. We shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion for a lack of notability when the protests haven't even happened yet. See also my own essay WP:TSTD. After a few days, if the coverage is not sustained enough, we should merge into protests against Donald Trump. Additionally, the criteria for ITN are different from the criteria for an article outright. -insert valid name here- (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse is actually true- people should not be creating articles assuming they will become notable in future, they should wait until an event is notable and then and only then should they create an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we were discussing whether this article should be created, I would agree with you (and with Vanilla Wizard that incubating in draftspace would be more appropriate). However, we are discussing whether this article should be deleted. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The correct thing is "it shouldn't have been created in the first place", therefore correct outcome is draftspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:NOTTOOSOON. — ^EF⁵ 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page was made June 26th, 2025, this isnt a rapid or a not too soon violation. Shaneapickle (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shaneapickle, and the protests are today. The date of creation matters less than the current time in relation to the event date, which is ongoing. — ^EF⁵ 18:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump. Seems like just another protest, nothing special really. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and support a procedural early close as the nom did not provide any reasons for deletion, with their argument instead being that there was no consensus on posting the No Kings protests to In the News, which the nom erroneously interpreted as "a consensus that protests against trump shouldn't be on wikipedia." I think the nom is a well-meaning but inexperienced user who did not know that the bar for something being on ITN is not the same as the bar for being on Wikipedia (if failing to be on ITN is grounds for deletion, the page about the no kings protests would have been deleted by now). Personally, I think this one probably should have been in draftspace until the event actually happened. The large number of references is an indicator that the event is plausibly going to be notable enough for a standalone page after it's actually occurred, but there's no point in moving it right now while the protests are just now starting. A merge discussion can happen after the event ends and some time passes, and I'd prefer if such a discussion took place on the article talk page as I'm not a fan of nominating pages for deletion when deletion is not a plausible outcome. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit i didnt put any reasoning for deletion, but this page according to people on ITN has a source that was deprecated and could not be trusted (News Nation or whatever it was) I also agree this should have been draftified. Shaneapickle (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an RFC, NewsNation was considered "generally unreliable" strictly in the topic area of UFOs/UAPs, and is otherwise considered generally reliable; it has not been deprecated. I encourage you to read other people's comments carefully. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "but this page according to people on ITN has a source that was deprecated and could not be trusted (News Nation or whatever it was)" - I believe that person's comment at ITN was talking about how the ITN nomination only mentioned one source in the ITN nomination template, and it was an outlet they hadn't heard of before, so they were not convinced that this news story is major enough to warrant posting to ITN (though I will say as a longtime ITN editor that the number of sources in the template / whether or not you heard of them is a bad rationale for opposing an ITN listing). That editor did also mention in their comment how strange and amusing it was that there's an asterisk in their WP:RS/P listing talking about their unreliable UFO-related content, but that's not really relevant to this discussion. The editor's comments at ITN were not talking about article content; they never said NewsNation was being cited in the article body (as of writing this, it's not in the sources list). But even if it were, as others have mentioned, that's okay: NewsNation is considered a generally reliable source with only one exception. But even then, even if it were a generally unreliable or deprecated source, and it were being cited in the article body, that's still not grounds for deleting the page, that'd just be grounds for removing the unreliable source through editing the page. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and revisit months later if it is having any lasting impact. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Protests in which thousands of people participate in hundreds of cities are notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump without prejudice to recreation if notability is more clearly established in the coming weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or~~ delete just another in a string of protests against the President. It won't have any lasting notability. It didn't accomplish anything. All of the sources are just that something occured in the cities. This can be summarized in one sentence.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is barebones and lacks significance. Aneirinn (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Now there is a page for Good Trouble Lives On protest. At what point is this just going to be WP:ROUTINE? Having an article for every minor Trump protest is not helping Wikipedia's credibility against those who claim WP has a liberal bias. (And I am a Democrat).-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one's definitely WP:TOOSOON to be an article and I agree with moving it out of mainspace. But I wouldn't worry too much about the latter half of that !vote; those who claim WP has this bias or that bias are likely not going to be swayed by the mere existence of a low-traffic page like that. If you were to speak to someone who felt Wikipedia is too biased to try to understand how they arrived at that conclusion, you probably wouldn't get a well-reasoned answer based on a careful analysis of which topics are being covered. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope we've not reached a point in society where national or international protests with thousands of participants in hundreds of locations are considered routine. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with liberal bias; we have articles for pro-Trump protests, too: March 4 Trump, Mother of All Rallies, Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump, etc. I'm not disputing that Wikipedia can have a liberal bias but in my opinion we should be creating articles for major demonstrations regardless of ideology, party, etc. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if this article is merged or deleted, but I don't see how eliminating the documentation of major political protests is a benefit to Wikipedia and its readers. We have good examples of what articles like this one can look like, so I would prefer to work towards that here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that conservatives protest too. However, these protests are forming at the rate of one every two weeks with different names. Whereas most types of protests are ongoing. These articles are just saying that people are protesting. I figure at this point that is WP:UNDUE for them to be given articles at this rate when all that is said is that there was a protest in this city and that city. I remember seeing KONY 2012 protests in my city, that wasn't included in that article, and it shouldn't it be. Note: I haven't even suggested anything against the plethora of other protests so far as those articles seem to have meat on their bones. If this article can have something more substantial than well a bunch of people held their signs in Scissortail Park on July ##, maybe I would be inclined to agree. Now for the argument that "hundreds of thousands of people participated." Hundreds of thousands of people went to the Thunder's championship parade. Do I think it should have it's own article? No.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, no cities as far as I could tell were listed. With that being said, it almost makes articles like these for upcoming protests seem like adverts.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Another Believer. This already has shown some significant coverage, and is still under construction. Each section or article need not include every single viewpoint equally, as long as overall our content is consistent and neutral, as I've written in my user space. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was not anything compared to the No Kings protests. While it received coverage, it is thin when compared to the major protests and actions of the last six months. It would be far better for it to appear on a list of similar protests. Thriley (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to compare this demonstration to No Kings, which was one of the largest protests in US history. We only need to assess if there's enough coverage to justify an article. Multiple editors here have proposed a merge to Protests against Donald Trump, which suggests the content at least has merit, but the parent article is quite lengthy and only going to continue to grow. Deleting this entry essentially scrubs mention of the protest from Wikipedia, which doesn't seem right. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be summarized in that article as "On July 5, 2025 there were the Free America Weekend protests across the country." This is WP:NOTDIRECTORY at this point. The article says nothing about why they were protesting, what their goals were, and the results (if any).- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've made your position quite clear, and I disagree that this content should be reduced to a single sentence in one article. I'm not sure how any of the six points at NOTDIRECTORY apply to an event that was held in hundreds of locations, if you could clarify. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 a simple list. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This article is not analogous to a list of phone numbers. If there's not enough context, then we should be working to fix that. There's plenty of content to add about background, activities, organizers, locations, etc. There are Wikipedia articles for many similar protests and there's no reason why this one couldn't also be expanded similar to quality entries like Not My Presidents Day, Impeachment March, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well this has been AfD for a while and it is still a list of people protesting in some areas. Frankly, none of the other articles this year have a list of every protest. I will conclude with why haven't you upgraded it as you say? This and the more recent protest based on timing reads like an advert.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever, I get YOUDONTLIKEIT, but I'm moving on to other things. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this topic meet WP:NEVENT notability criteria on its own merits?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify It's been a week and I don't see this having any lasting impact based on what's currently in the article. I don't want to !vote delete just because it's still recent enough that it could change at any time, and would give people the chance to further develop it, but it should absolutely not be in mainspace as-is, because it's not clear this wasn't just a connected series of events in one news cycle. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 University Teachers Association of Ghana strike

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

All the sources from this ref bombed article are from 2022. Does not meet WP:EVENT. Already covered in University Teachers Association of Ghana. Oppose redirect as unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Events, Education, and Ghana. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University Teachers Association of Ghana#2022_strike, it's a plausible enough search term. मल्ल (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNTV Cup Season 1

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

These are individual seasons of the UNTV Cup, an amateur basketball league for charity aired by UNTV with teams composed of players from different Philippine government agencies. While the general tournament per se may be notable, individual seasons are not. This has been tagged for years, and is almost exclusively referenced to UNTV or to UNTV Cup, a case of WP:PRIMARY. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, as part of a series:

Howard the Duck (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: UNTV Cup Executive Face Off 2017 is a previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hadsel 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 fatal bus crashes are incredibly common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present), or at Austvågøya if it's significant to the island's history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Norway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boreal Norge. This accidentally happened about six months ago, yet a certain amount of coverage has continued in Norwegian sources past the 24 hour mark. ([16] in NRK and [17] in no:VG Nett) This is quite possibly going to prove notable in the future, and a merge to the operator preserves the history if the coverage continues on (and is less UNDUE than a merge to the island). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NOPAGE. Right now I don't think the subject is notable enough to have its own page, but as GreenLipstickLesbian said, it has the potential to become notable later. Would be open to a Redirect to the operator's article if someone wrote a section on the crash as well. Gommeh 🎮 18:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Al-Qarara

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

Does not pass NEVENT, coverage is not sustained. Not even sure if this happened as described? Only sources are primary "war updates" that don't frame it this way or maps from dubious sources or news articles that don't mention this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Palestine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NEVENT. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that describe this as a "siege" or frame the event as notable in itself. Most of the references are either war updates without analytical framing, unverifiable maps, or news articles that do not support the narrative described in the article. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Also, the article is baised. It claims Palestinian victory whilst source 2 claims the town was successfully conquered so if we keep it we need a major fact-check effort. DGtal (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change name: Definitely keep. Multiple sources treat the events in al-Qarara as their own independent campaign. These include:

Iran Update, March 21, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War. Institue for the Study of War classified the events in al-Qarara as their own independent operation, writing: "The IDF 7th Brigade (36th Division) killed Palestinian fighters in the area and destroyed military infrastructure, including rocket launch shafts.[37] Israeli forces conducted waves of airstrikes on Qarara as part of the operation.[38] Israeli forces have been operating in Qarara since March 3.[39] PIJ fighters targeted Israeli infantrymen breaching a tunnel in Qarara on March 21 by rigging the tunnel entrance to explode.[40] Hamas fighters targeted two Israeli tanks with rocket-propelled grenades west of Qarara."

It then repeated its reports on the al-Qarara clashes in March 24th: "The IDF 7th Brigade and Kfir Brigade continued clearing operations in Qarara, northern Khan Younis, on March 24.[19] The brigades killed Palestinian fighters near the Israel-Gaza Strip border and targeted a meeting site for Hamas fighters in Qarara.[20] Israeli forces seized weapons caches and an IDF helicopter struck a tunnel shaft in Qarara.[21] Palestinian militias did not claim attacks targeting Israeli forces in Qarara on March 24."

Then again on March 29, it continued to claim that there was a campaign in al-Qarara saying: "Israeli forces continued to conduct clearing operations in al Amal and al Qarara neighborhoods of Khan Younis on March 29."

Then there is The Latest Situation In The South Of The Gaza Strip And Khan Yunis (Map) - Islamic World News which details Israeli efforts to surround al-Qarara specificaly.

The same source also returns to al-Qarara as it neared the battle's end. Latest Updates Gaza Strip, 16 March 2024 - Islamic World News: "According to the latest information, the Israeli regime’s army has retreated from some conflict zones in Khan Yunis city and concentrated its armored units in Al-Qarara town and its surroundings. In the past 48 hours, after Israeli artillery and aerial attacks on Al-Qarara, which resulted in the martyrdom and injury of several Palestinians, the military personnel of the occupying regime made slight progress in this axis."

Another maariv article https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1090909 also mentions Israeli plans to find POWs and Hamas leaders/officials in al-Qarara that had failed, which also is another statement of an independent campaign with its own goals.

However, few if any of these sources call the events in al-Qarara a siege. So there is definitely reason to keep it but perhaps the name of a siege is undue. Genabab (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are secondary, they're all primary "news updates" from when it happened with no continued coverage to pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA That isn't true. The maariv source is secondary for one. Secondly, several agricultural journals have also focused on the effects of the campaign by noting its impact on Gazan ecology as it lead to the destruction of the only baladi seed bank in Gaza. These reports emerged after the campaign had ended, which thus satisfies the duration of covereage in WP:NEVENT. Please note the part that says:

"If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." Their focus on specifically al-Qarara makes it fit as a case study. It also fits diversity of sources since an agricultural journal remarking the notability of the events in al-Qarara is certainly very different to ISW. Genabab (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was from the week this happened, it is neither sustained nor secondary. These aren't case studies, they're news updates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA

The agricultural report I mentioned was published in October of 2024. The battle in al-Qarara ended in *april*. That's a 6 month gap. Not a week. The other one was from September of 2024. Not April.

And they are case studies, not news updates. When I say journal I do mean journal, not a news site.

Hell reporting on the effects of the attacks in al-Qarara are going on this year too. Take for instance:

Al-Qarara Museum: A Testament to Palestinian Resilience Amid Israeli Destruction | Safa News Agency - English Edition. It even refers to an invasion of al-Qarara by Israeli forces. Genabab (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the agricultural report? All the sources you have linked are primary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whats-next-for-Gazas-foodsystems.pdf

and

Success-Reslience-Story-Seed-Bank_-English-1.pdf Genabab (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First mentions this for a single sentence. not sigcov. Second one does not appear to be reliable and even if it was is also not sigcov in its coverage of this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> First mentions this for a single sentence.

Irrelevant. It still estabilishes the events at al-Qarara as notable, hence why it states "Gaza’s only baladi seed bank in Al Qarara".

> Second one does not appear to be reliable

@PARAKANYAA What is this judgement being based on? How have you determined that this journal "appears" to be unreliable. What is this based on? A hunch? Smh.

> even if it was is also not sigcov in its coverage of this

How? Genabab (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An event that received 0 significant secondary coverage does not pass WP:NEVENT. The city-bank is irrelevant to the notability of the event, and even then no, a single sentence of coverage does not make that notable either. What would make the second source reliable? It isn't anything with established trust. The website appears fo be a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> The city-bank is irrelevant to the notability of the event,

Why?

> and even then no, a single sentence of coverage does not make that notable either.

For one, what makes it notable is that it is the only such bank in Gaza + this also ignores an entire journal issue dedicated toward the effects of the events in al-Qarara.

> What would make the second source reliable?

You asserted that it was unreliable, I assumed you had some evidence for it.

> he website appears to be a blog.

How does it appear to be a blog exactly? Genabab (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, for the same reason that if a notable person dies, their death does not warrant a separate article automatically. The war in Gaza is obviously notable, but a single sentence of coverage that a building was destroyed does in no way make the event notable. The second source is a local group blog [18] that describes itself as "a collection of stories". Almost all stories appear to be written by a single person. Not an RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> but a single sentence of coverage that a building was destroyed does in no way make the event notable

There's a lot to say here. For one, it isn't a building. It is the only seed bank in Gaza. Secondly, it isn't a single sentence when multiple sources explain this.

> he second source is a local group blog [1]

Ok that's objectivally false. The pdf is hosted there, but that isn't the source. Did you even click on the source to check? Its clear that it was published by the Gaza Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture Platform. Like it literally says this when you click on the link in the reference??? It takes you to a UN website^[1] which lists the publisher as Gaza Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture Platform and as an article, not a blog. How did you not see this???? Genabab (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the single sentence is in multiple sources that does not combine to make it sigcov. And that kind of thing has no inherent notability, so an event leading to its destruction does not confer any kind of notability on the event. Why would it? And yes, if no source gives more than a brief mention, that is not sigcov. None of these articles give sigcov on the event.

I saw that it was not from there, but I thought you were insinuating that because it was republished there it took its reliability from there. Why would the original source be reliable either? It's a short WP:PRIMARY PDF document from a WP:LOCAL organization with no sign of any review whatsoever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> If the single sentence is in multiple sources [...] And yes, if no source gives more than a brief mention, that is not sigcov. None of these articles give sigcov on the event.

The second source isn't a single sentence is it? Its literally an entire article about it lmao.

> And that kind of thing has no inherent notability, so an event leading to its destruction does not confer any kind of notability on the event.

How? And it does if multiple sources talk about the event specifically because of it. This also applies to culture (see the destruction of one of Gaza's only museums)

> It's a short WP:PRIMARY PDF document from a WP:LOCAL organization with no sign of any review whatsoever.

It being short doesn't make it unreliable, it isn't a primary source its an independent organisation writing an article about an event, it being a pdf document is also completely irrelevant (no clue why you want to bring that up) and just because the org is from Gaza does not mean WP:Local applies... And how have you determined there was no review?

Besides, the UN-FAO hosting it certainly suggests this is not just some random article, rather something note-worthy... Genabab (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second article is not about it, no. WP:NOTINHERITED, they are not talking about the event specifically. I brought up it being a PDF document because there is no indication that this publication underwent any sort of fact checking or anything that would make this a reliable source. It is a primary source because it's sourced from interviews and personal experiences. Per WP:NEVENT local sourcing is not enough to evidence notability. A document being published online doesn't make it reliable! There is a lot of garbage on the websites of UN affiliates, so that doesn't help, there is no evidence this is reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> The second article is not about it, no.

False. It's literally about the destruction and aftermath of the al-Qarara seed bank.

> I brought up it being a PDF document because there is no indication that this publication underwent any sort of fact checking or anything that would make this a reliable source

Oh wow because being a PDF document means that there was no review pre-publication, right? That's definitely how that works...

> It is a primary source because it's sourced from interviews and personal experiences.

I don't think you understand what a primary source is.Say there is a history book which includes an interview. The act of having an interview in the work, even it being a major part of said work, does not retroactively make the work a primary source in and of itself. That is just not how sources work, at all.

> Per WP:NEVENT local sourcing is not enough to evidence notability.

Just because the publisher is an organisation dedicated to Gaza, does not mean its local sourcing. Local sourcing would be stuff like "al-Qarara News" or something. Not an organisation dedicated to studying agriculture in Gaza lol. You seem to be confusing an institute that is about something specific with "local sourcing".

> document being published online doesn't make it reliable!

Yeah that's not what I said.

> there is no evidence this is reliable

This is probably the most opaque discussion I've had on wikipedia. You've never given a single indication of what would need to be true for you to deem this reliable, nor have you given any reason to assert that it is unreliable to begin with! What do you want me to say? Genabab (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ From destruction to reconstruction: The revival of AL-Qarara Baladi Seed Bank | FAO

Keep - passes WP:LASTING with flying colours – there's ongoing coverage of the destruction of the Al Qarara Cultural Museum as well as the seed bank from a variety of academic, journalistic, and NGO sources. (Some of which are already on the page, some of which I'll go ahead and add.) Also agree with @Genabab's comments regarding the sigcov of the events of the siege in question. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

Multiple sources name al-Qarara/Karara/Al-Qara as the location of the fighting. The RS ones are:

[7] https://www.aljazeera.net/videos/2024/1/10/%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%AB%D8%AB-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%82-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B7 - the aftermath of the Siege

"The scenes showed the effects of the extensive destruction left by the Israeli forces incursing into the area of Al-Qara" (translated)

[14]IDF removes rocket launchers, kills more terrorists in Gaza's Khan Yunis, 3 April 2024 https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-795216 "IDF soldiers continued fighting in the al-Karara... "

[2] https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1090909 "Another operation that ended just before the retreat, was the capture of the town of Karara north of Khan Yunis." (translated from a mass-market tabloid but still a usable source )

Then we have coverage of the longer term affects of the attack in the 'Ecological impact' and 'Cultural impact' sections which I would argue are more important in the notability debate. Dualpendel (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Feedback on recently-identified sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if discounting the need for SUSTAINED (events were fairly recent), I do not see independent SIGCOV for this siege. If you feel I am wrong, feel free to point me to the correct sources. gidonb (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Sigcov in this context comes in part from the attention given to the ecological and cultural impact of fighting in al-Qarara, alongside some of the links given above by other users Genabab (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting, Decision. The aggression of the occupation loses the semblance of life and turns it into a disaster area Here is another source which also examines the impact of the fighting in al-Qarara

I'll see if I can find anymore in Arabic Genabab (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qassam carries out a double operation targeting an Israeli army force in the town of Al-Qarara

Scenes of destruction unfold in Gaza. What does the picture look like in the Qarara area? | Al Araby TV

After evacuating areas in the corridors. Displaced people: No safe place and exhausted by repeated displacement This one details the start of Israeli military operations in al-Qarara (alongside other towns)

Significant! Al-Duwairi: For these reasons, Israel re-attacked Al-Qarara | News | Al , Jazeera Net This one explains why Israel was focusing on al-Qarara writing "Maj. Gen. Fayez al-Duwairi, a military expert, said that the IDF has returned to attack the al-Qarara area because it is the supply line for its forces in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip. He added – during his daily analysis on Al Jazeera – that the area of Qarara north of Khan Yunis witnessed fierce battles at the beginning of the Israeli ground offensive on the southern Gaza Strip, pointing out that the Israeli forces were unable to control the network of tunnels in the area." + https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2024/1/11/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%84%D9%87%D8%B0%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%AD%D8%A8%D8%AA which states why Israel withdrew from al-Qarara and anaylses it as a battle

@Gidonb Apologies, I just realised I forgot to ping u \(^_^)/ Genabab (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Genabab. I'll take a look. gidonb (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears to be an "on and off" series of attacks rather than a large, coordinated effort. The sourcing seems minimal with some mentions of fighting, but no real mention of an extended fight. I wouldn't be opposed to a selective merge to the invasion article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Worth noting there are sources that refer to it as an extended fight (see aljazeera source mentioned above) but you're right that it isn't in the article.. I'll add them and that will hopefully rectify this 0_o Genabab (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Cycling History Conference

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

No refs on the page which are independent of the subject. Nothing much found which suggests there are sufficient RS to show that the notability criteria for inclusion have been met JMWt (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can find plenty of info from the conference organization itself, and a few pages from locations that hosted it, but independent coverage is sparse. I did find this article: [19], but the unsubstantiated quote at the bottom, "Beware of the internet, Wikipedia, etc." does not give me confidence in the source's credibility. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bolaang Mongondow mine collapse

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mine collapses that kill 29 people aren't very routine. I don't think point 4 should be read this expansively, this seems notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Only secondary sources contribute to GNG. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Death count is not a factor in determining notability. Anyone is welcome to add a history section to Bolaang Mongondow Regency and add a mention of this, or to create a list of mine collapses and add this as an item in the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reywas92. I'm familiar with mine collapses in general; this one was significant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable accident with lasting effect. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I mulled this one over a bit, but I think it clears the standard. This September 2024 article from AP describes this particular collapse as especially bad relative to more recent illegal gold mine collapses in Indonesia. On its own, that strikes me as suggesting there is a cultural memory of this event that was still salient five years after the fact. While the article as written feels like it runs afoul of NOTNEWS, I think the subject is in fact notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well written and sourced; covers a notable historical event. User01938 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Pbritti. I think the AP article gives it notability. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was an awful accident, reading this article was upsetting. This had a lot of news coverage in Indonesia from a brief skim of the references, I also spotted a BBC News report. Based on other people's comments, I feel that this does slightly have greater notability than Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. I think with some more international news references, fixing the dead link reference and expanding the article a bit, this should be kept. 11WB (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A mine collapse killing 29 has implications for the illegal mine company. The incident was also retrosprectively written about [20][21]. Vanaa1 (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'll have time to run through my own review of the sources today, but as currently documented in our guidelines, WP:ROUTINE is not about an editor's own judgement of the significance of a particular event, but the nature of the coverage of that event, i.e. [...] and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. The referenced AP coverage on this event is 2 sentences, of a total of 28 words: In February 2019, a makeshift wooden structure in an illegal gold mine in North Sulawesi province collapsed partly due to shifting soil. More than 40 people were buried. I'd consider it a stretch to say it counts as an example of an event being re-analyzed afterwards. Certainly, it's awful that it happened, but fatalities unlicensed and illegal mining operations seem unfortunately common in Indonesia and just because it is referenced (as opposed to analysed) by RS after the fact doesn't mean we would be able to write an article on it. (q.v. WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, cf. also Al Jazeera referencing a 2001 collapse in 2022) Unfortunately, we do not currently have an Illegal mining in Indonesia or similar more general article to smerge or redirect into, which would otherwise be my recommendation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess Vanaa1's newly-found sources against the notability guidelines mentioned throughout this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm fairly confident that given the above, the article can and does meet sufficient notability standards. Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without objection to a redirect to any plausible target. I've went through the sources I've been able to find, and they all fail the test set out at WP:ROUTINE / WP:SBST, even if editors consider the event itself a significant one. The AP article does not in fact describe this particular collapse as especially bad or provide, as I mentioned above, anything beyond a trivial mention of the event, and that editors are even tempted to ascribe analysis, to sources, that does not exist in them is quite damning, in my opinion. As for the other two sources, the KronikToday is someone recounting their personal experience, a WP:PRIMARY source if I've seen one, and Zona Totabuan only mentions this collapse briefly in the paragraph starting Peristiwa ini, as best as I could tell. Another source covering a 2024 collapse from Antara also mentions this one, but it's really no better than the AP. I do not believe the alternative is a plausible interpretation of our guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[1] Geeta Pandey (5 December 2023). "Nimisha Priya: The Indian nurse from Kerala on death row in Yemen". BBC. Retrieved 13 July 2025.

[2] "Murder and blood money: The case of Nimisha Priya, the Kerala nurse on death row in Yemen". Firstpost. 24 March 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2025.

[3] In November 2014, more than 50 people were killed when a bus collided head-on with the truck near Khairpur district. The bus was carrying passengers from northwestern Swat valley to Karachi.

[4] Two months ago, at least 50 people died when a bus collided head-on with a goods vehicle near the city of Khairpur, in the north of Sindh province.

[5] Nov 11, 2014: Fifty-eight people died following a collision between a passenger coach and truck near the Theri Bypass in Khairpur.

[6] From destruction to reconstruction: The revival of AL-Qarara Baladi Seed Bank | FAO

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]