Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Events

List of tornado-related deaths at schools

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

Fails WP:NLIST, as much as I love tornado-related lists. E_F⁵ 21:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST and WP:SALAT for being too specific. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Baghdad (1821)

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

Amongst the articles mentioned in the "Slicing history into pieces" thread (the two other articles are already nominated here [1] [2]). There is more info about other stuff than the siege itself, the latter which is not even fully sourced. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support per nom.

Iranian112 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823). I'd rather see the article redirected vs. outright deleted. Because it contains a lot of work finding and composing citations and some information not in the main article. It may be useful in the future. Also the redirect itself is worth saving. -- GreenC 00:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, dear GreenC, we have put a great deal of effort into this page. We have carefully researched the necessary sources, and we have thoroughly discussed the rationale behind this page with you step by step in the "talk" section. Therefore, I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. Anyone who wishes can come and discuss it with me many of the answers people are looking for are already available on the talk page. The Siege of Baghdad article is not a simple or trivial page. It covers a battle that is as crucial and significant as the Battle of Erzurum. Are you seriously considering deleting or turning this historically important article which changed the course of the war into a mere redirect? @HistoryofIran @Iranian112

Apologies if we disturbed you by tagging you, but this is truly an important matter. Wishing you a good day. BEFOR01 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Lectonar (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is referring to himself and the people who took part in developing this page. Klass12345 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadliest Canadian traffic accidents

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Individual accidents are talked about, but not a list of accidents. E_F⁵ 14:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of other wikipedia ‘list’ articles formatted exactly like this one, list of deadliest rail accidents, list of serial killers by number of victims, list of deadliest tornadoes in America, perhaps discussion should take place on how to improve an article if deemed to be substandard instead of jumping straight to deletion. 208.96.108.139 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether it's formatted well, it's whether it's notable. Unlike list of deadliest tornadoes in the Americas, List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents, etc., this one is too specific. — E_F⁵ 16:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm of Love Tour

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

Unnotable concert. No coverage in sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Sinhagad (1693)

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

None of the three cited sources provide significant coverage to the topic, this was a minor attack that had no lasting impact nor is it given the weight required for a standalone article in the history books, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Erzurum (1821)

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

Article subject already discussed in the ottoman Iranian war article. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Could easily blank and redirect this instead of AFD.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This battle was important in the Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian112 (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Here is the link of the thread [3]. Another relevant link [4]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kategate

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

After checking through the references, I am unable to find any noteworthy coverage beyond March to early-April 2024. This appears to just fall under WP:NOTNEWS. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We literally have an entire New York Times article from January 2025 dedicated to the whole timeline of events from last year. She was one of the runners-up for Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2024 again due to the events of past year. I personally voted in favor of the deletion of Where is Kate?, simply because it went into absurd discussions about videos and conspiracy theories. This article though discusses an action by the subject herself, namely publishing and then retracting a doctored photo; which was released on the platform of a supposedly respected institution, namely Kensington Palace. And at this point we do have multiple pages dedicated to Royal scandals namely Squidgygate, Tampongate, Megxit, etc. Cannot see why Kate should be the only one whose actions cannot be discussed. Keivan.f^Talk 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article in question only concerns a particular incident during the whole cancer diagnosis affair, one which only lasted for about a month before the press stopped covering it. The New York Times artice linked above only summarizes the photo scandal in two sections, which indicates that the Photogate scandal content should probably be merged into a separate article. The Time shortlist makes no mention of the photo scandal. As for the other links, we should keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in mind. Not all royal scandals are deserving of a Wikipedia article; long-term coverage for each must be demonstrated, but even at a glance, the reference sections of each of the three linked -gate articles have sources spanning multiple years of coverage. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with @Keivan.f. This article is clearly focused on the photo editing incident, not general speculation or trivia. The event was widely reported by reliable sources and sparked international media coverage—far more than passing interest. It’s clearly notable and distinct from general speculation, and its sources support standalone coverage.Given its reliable sourcing and , it easily meets notability and deserves to stand. MSincccc (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The international media is not beyond covering passing interest. In order to show that the subject has lasting notability, coverage from (ideally) later than March-April 2024 should be provided. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave an example with the New York Times, which even goes into greater depths about all the events from last year, which Wikipedia cannot do since it's not a news website. And we don't necessarily need to see daily coverage of an event from the past to establish its notability. Do we get daily coverage on celebgate or emailgate? Of course not. But they do get discussed in contexts related to their respective subjects. Keivan.f^Talk 15:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the NYT article only mentions the entire Photogate scandal in two headings, namely under "March 10, 2024" and "March 11, 2024." This indicates the Photogate scandal should also be placed in a separate Wikipedia article discussing the cancer diagnosis more broadly. Additionally, while it is understood that long-term coverage does not mean constant coverage, notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Perhaps an article titled "Cancer diagnosis of Catherine, Princess of Wales" (currently a redirect) should be made, since I do see long term coverage of that subject. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cancer diagnosis has nothing to do with the digital alteration of the photograph released on Mother's Day. It is just that the diagnosis was revealed to the public a few days after this incident. MSincccc (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the exact WP:BLP type of issue that got Where is Kate? deleted in the first place. We may be able to discuss events within a living person's life, but we cannot have pages that discuss their medical status with running commentary. The publication of this photo was a PR move to quash the controversy surrounding her temporary retirement from public life but unfortunately it backfired spectacularly due to amateur editing techniques. That is something that can be discussed without violating the subject's right to medical privacy but an article on her cancer diagnosis would be a bit of an overreach. Keivan.f^Talk 01:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, then let no such article be made. Until we receive long-term coverage of Photogate specifically (beyond the media spike in March 2024), there is no reason to have it as an article. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the BLP concerns rectified there are clearly enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tabloid story with no lasting coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Squidgygate, Tampongate and Megxit also started as a tabloid stories. It's widespread coverage that matters, not necessarily where the story originated from. Keivan.f^Talk 11:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the second half of my comment. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the examples below of articles from 2025 that discussed her Mother's Day post from this year and contrasted it with her post from last year. Keivan.f^Talk 19:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comments above that this was about Catherine's own actions, rather than tabloid gossip. There seem to be multiple sources. Blackballnz (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catherine, Princess of Wales § Privacy and the media (or better still, to an anchor at the relevant paragraph within that section). This has received no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nor resulted in WP:LASTING effects. Even if one were to argue that there was enough WP:DEPTH of coverage during the initial news cycle to pass WP:EVENT, WP:NOPAGE applies. The existing paragraph in the main article is sufficient (with no need to merge any further details in my opinion). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of disagree with your points regarding WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING. The media has literally been discussing the video she released this year, while pointing out the fiasco from last year (1, 2). Keivan.f^Talk 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Privacy and the media - per Rosbif73. It is due there, but it is of insufficient note to require a separate article, which is therefore overwritten. A clear case of WP:PAGEDECIDE favouring the placement of this event inside the broader context, rather than requiring a spin out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We still have Beergate and Plebgate. Better off in its own article, than cluttering up the main article with mindless tabloid trivia. "lol" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'Kategate' is a much better title that's inclusive of the entire affair and rectifies the BLP concerns of the previous article. Clearly a notable series of events with world-wide top-tier front-page coverage, and the article matches our coverage of other occurrences such as Squidgygate, Tampongate, Megxit, Beergate, Plebgate, etc. PK-WIKI (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm dubious about a redirect given that I can't find much in the way of continuing interest in this either. The thing has serious BLP issues given that the whole framing is that of the righteous media having caught the princess doing something which they claim is terribly naughty even though it's not even very clear what the alterations actually were, much less that anything was done terribly wrong in making them. If there is a real topic here, it is the press's adversarial relationship with her, of which this is but one passing incident. And the persistence of a list of other "-gate" trivial scandals testifies to a lack of imagination by headline writers, but it's still all WP:OTHERSTUFF of no relevance to this story except perhaps to alert us to the presence of other article wanting for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the whole framing is that of the righteous media having caught the princess doing something which they claim is terribly naughty This argument can be extended to Squidgygate, Tampongate, Megxit, Beergate, and literally most of the other -gate scandals. It is literally nobody's business that Diana's lover called her Squidgy, or Charles wanted to be Camilla's tampon or Meghan wanted to be a millionaire in California, yet they all received widespread coverage. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge anyone, but we can have an article on a widely covered event that affects the public image of the royal family. And please, it's not like Kate herself sat behind a computer and published the photo; it was her staff at Kensington Palace and an amateurish PR error of this magnitude by a royal institution is noteworthy. Keivan.f^Talk 18:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As we're not to use tabloid journalism as the only source in BLPs, why do these articles have titles invented and primarily used by tabloids? I think Kategate started on social media and has been used in some reliable sources - though often in quotation marks, but it doesn't seem like the best choice for an encyclopedia. Orange sticker (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a reader of British tabloids, I have to say I missed all these flash-in-the-pan controversies, and that's what they were. I mean, they might have a place in an article on how badly Diana-and-Charles were treated by the press, but do they have any other lasting significance of themselves? I doubt that, and to repeat, they are other stuff which exists in WP which has to stand or be deleted on their own merits. And sadly, Diana having been dead for years and having been separated from Charles for longer, the WP:BLP issues are not as pressing, not to mention that press hounding likely played a factor in her death. We don't need to help them do it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's coverage also in German, which I missed but saw now searching: NZZ, Spiegel, Heute, Standard, you name it. It's #Kategate or "Kategate", and temporary. I don't see a need for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Travel Mart

AfDs for this article:

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

Is clearly WP:PROMO. Little to know sources talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and all of the sources are press releases Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Travel and tourism, India, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:An editor had edited a name change on the article and broken the link to this AFD. Ihave restored that and am adding a Findsources for the alternate name here. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Tourism Mart: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

U-15 European Baseball Championship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-12 European Baseball Championship and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European Juveniles Baseball Championship. No indication of notability. Fails to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Baseball, and Europe. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Lankaran (1812)

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

Fail to see how this is WP:NOTABLE. Just another article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. Basically to get an easy win or "point" for the involved faction. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources and read a little about the Qajar-Russian war, you will understand that the war was real. But you will not be able to understand this because you plan to destroy the work of others and delete their pages. Eminİskandarli (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hmm. I guess Wikipedia doesn't treat everyone the same. Even though I'm telling the truth, a liar is being listened to just because he has rewards. There's nothing to say. This is beyond reason. Eminİskandarli (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly attacking me isn’t going to help unless you’re aiming to get reported by me to WP:ANI. I’ll say it here as well: read WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:ASPERSIONS too. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the last person who will teach me wisdom. You can shut up. Eminİskandarli (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This bickering is unacceptable and if it continues, it could lead to a loss of editing privileges. Please discuss the notability of the article and the reliability and quality of its sources and additional sources you have found and brought to this discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum where editors insult each other. Got it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, can I tell you about the sources? There is a lot of information about this war, but it has not been added to Wikipedia. Historyofiran is just talking nonsense. Eminİskandarli (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom and failure of article creator (now blocked for incivility) to justify notability apart from battleground ranting and gaslighting throughout the discussion. Borgenland (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Heroes

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

Fails WP:NSPORT with very limited WP:SIGCOV Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Rugby league, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has just been created. Within the next couple of days, more details and sources will be added. It’s foolish to list it for deletion without giving it time to be completed. OCDD (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be completed in draft space. Draftify Mn1548 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caracas Ibero-American Film Festival

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

Promo for non notable festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of announcements, PR and listings but not independent coverage. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NEVENT. Svartner (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9 July 2024 Gaza attacks

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

There's no there there. This seems to be a few attacks that happened on a particular day during the midst of a war. It doesn't seem to be at all notable beyond a few "breaking news" announcements. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING.

Update -- based on the new information, I support the merge proposed below. The timeline is pretty much a list of attacks per days which suits this nicely. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024#9 July per Miminity. List items do not have to be independently notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ or redirect if a suitable target can be found. Not an independently notable event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024#9 July per Miminity. That page has mention and a link. The link should be replaced with a merged and edited paragraph from this page summarising the event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024#9 July per nom. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, by itself this content is not notable. The content should be merge or deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, also convinced that a merge, in light of recent information, is the best !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the relevant timeline page. Jay Cubby 06:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satelli D'Or Film Festival

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

Suspected WP:HOAX that has been on Wikipedia for sixteen years. I could find no evidence of the existence of this film festival (or the founder) online or in newspaper archives. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is certainly hoax material. No results on Newspapers.com for 'Satelli D'Or' (using TWL), and Ancestry.com only came back with one result for an Ernest Satelli (which seems to be a person named Ernest Santell who died in 1992 in Illinois, not 1989 as the article states). Furthermore, no actual substance of the Satelli D'Or article has been written since the 2009 edits by users Maxzilla2005 and Doctorannabelle (a combined 16 edits on Wikipedia, 15 of which are on the Satelli D'Or), and in my eyes cements the existence of the hoax. Ré union! 18:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely nothing found about this festival online or its founder. It's completely implausible for a film festival in which M. Night Shyamalan and Marc Forster etc. have featured to not have at least some coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the more I look at it the more I'm convinced this is fake. If this indeed does pass as a hoax, it should be moved to the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, which would make it the 22nd longest-lived hoax on Wikipedia. Ré union! 19:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly should be deleted as it has no sourcing and none can be found. It seems likely it is a hoax. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. The closest I could find on Newspapers.com to the name Ernest Satelli was Ernest Batelli (Sr and Jr), who lived in New Jersey in the 1930s and 40s. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deblocking of Dulje

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

Poorly sourced and dubious article written by a blocked editor with a history of copyvios, dubious/poorly sourced articles, and some form of SOCK/MEAT editing. Sources don't seem to describe this as a thing. While some military actions did appear to take place in this area during this time, I haven't been able to find reliable sources that talk about it in Serbian or English, let alone sources that allow this to pass WP:NEVENT. Analysis of current sources is below:

[5] - picture of the Martyrs' and Martyrs' Memorial in Duhël confirming two soldiers died in 1998. That's it.
[6] used to support a definitive death/casualty toll in the deblockade in the villiage, actually says Ethnic Albanian sources claimed that eight Albanian civilians have been killed and about 40 wounded in two days of fighting across the province. Makes no mention of the deblockadement or ties these deaths to it or the leadup to it.
[7] 2008 news article from Glas javnosti titled "Crimes of Albanian terrorists 1995-1998: Mortar and bomb attacks". Verifies the attack near Duhël on the 23rd, and parts of the other list of events, but makes no attempt to connect them to each other like out article does. Makes no mention of the deblockadement.
[8] confirms injuries of Milutinov, Milutinov, and Nenad near Duhël on the dates and times in question, presented as a list of injuries during the time and makes no attempt to connect them to any larger event apart from the war itself.
[9] and [10] are substantially superficially modified versions of each other with no clear authorship; suspect they were both copied from the same source. First is a blog/forum thing, second is hosted by Tripod (web hosting) which is UGC. Tripod version does not appear seems to fully verify the content: makes no mention of events on "27 August 1998", only discussed a 1999 action by the KLA. Also discussed events in the apring of 1998, but generally, making no reference to this village or blockade or deblockade. Mostly appears to be about tanks. Blog version actually does make reference to a blockadement/military actions in Duhël in July and August. Doesn't mention the KLA by name, doesn't treat the actions in Duhël that summer/fall as connected.
[11] Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission report from the time; makes no mention of the event and can't be used to prove NEVENT notability even if it did.

Haven't been able to find any other sources discussing this outside of a few mirrors of the Serbian Wikipedia's version of the article (of which this is a translation). If somebody more knowledgeable in this topic area finds a book discussing this in detail, please ping me, but considering the poor state/SYNTH concerns, lack of reliable sources in the article, the fact I can't find any other sources, the contentiousness of the topic area, and the previously documented issues with the writer/translator, AfD it is. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article. I suggest taking this article to Wikipedia's list of hoaxes. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like it was just cobbled together from random sources, and randomly given a title. I've come across many of this editor's articles in NPP, and all share similar issues. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor non-notable incident of in fact it happened in this way at all. Lots of this stuff popping up at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is a machine translation from sr-wiki: [12]. If this is determined to be a hoax here, it should be flagged there as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Given that the contemporaneous reporting does seem to support that something happened in this region during this time, I'm not quite willing to write it off as fully a hoax - I think I'm with Peacemaker that it's, at best, a "minor non-notable incident i[f] in fact it happened in this way" (emphasis mine). That sort of distortion isn't uncommon in this area and, given the events of the 1990s and widespread misinformation, is often going to be done in good-faith. srWiki will set their own standards of notability for events in Kosovo/the Kosovo War; expect their standards to be much laxer than ours (though hopefully better than crWiki's was a few years ago.) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 00:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - even assuming it's at least partially true, it's neither notable nor well-written. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, more cruft from same blocked user. Mztourist (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Macedonian anti-corruption protests

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

I had doubts about the notability of the article and I am still not convinced about the notability. This article does not contain anything that is not already covered by the main article Kočani nightclub fire. The Macedonian-language edition does not contain anything unique either. While protests and tributes have occurred, these protests appear to be nowhere near the level of Serbia or Turkey. I was considering nominating this article for deletion before too, but I decided to wait in good faith in case something changes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although you make a very good discussion, you have to understand that this page was made very recently and is yet to receive any new editions due to lack of media coverage. I had originally planned to make daily updates kind of like how some contributors do in the 2024-present Serbian anti-corruption protests page, however it was my personal issues that led to the page being outdated. However, there is a few things to tell apart

Never once had anybody stated this protest was at all at the tension level of Serbia and Turkey. Although, due to how small Macedonia really is populace and territorial-wise, it is very clear that these protests still hold significance to the pan-Balkan Revolution.
Although this page may cover the same events as the page for the Kočani nightclub fire, it is still important to note that the nightclub fire wiki was made with one direct goal, that being cover the event. There is only slight coverage of aftermath of the event. Using this logic, shouldn't we also delete the page for the Serbian anti-corruption protests because a lot of the things covered there are already covered in the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse? Obviously not.
Let me make this clear, I am not a Macedonian and I especially have not controlled any of the things written on the Macedonian translation of the page as it is not within my control to do so.

This might seem a bit irksome, but if it takes that much, I will begin to cover more updates as the protests continue to happen.

If you have anything else to ask me, feel free to do so. MrFool Mapping (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We must have been typing at the same time, haha - I hope my response went to the original person who nominated this for deletion and not to you. I just wanted to clarify that I agree that this page should remain alive and active. Apologies if I did hit the incorrect "reply" button!

I think you worded everything perfectly regarding this. Thank you for standing up for the smaller communities that are too engulfed in tragedy right now to even check Wiki, let alone contribute to it. I hope your words are taken into consideration. Wishing you a beautiful day! FoxFables (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also worked on other articles like 2022 North Macedonia protests, which pretty much had daily mainstream coverage. There was also plenty of analysis about those protests. The coverage of these 2025 protests appears to be rather inconsistent, probably because there is no organized wave. The main article contains plenty of material about the aftermath, from investigation to tributes and etc. North Macedonia also had other mass protest movements like the 2016 Macedonian protests being one example, for which there is plenty of coverage and analysis, including in academic sources. So, even though it is a small country, there have been still mass protests. Even if this article gets deleted, it could be recreated in the future, in case something changes, with more coverage and analysis. I know that you do not have control of the Macedonian-language edition and I was just pointing out the lack of necessity for expansion from that edition. Either way, I appreciate your willingness to contribute to this topic. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite your doubts? I read this article directly after the main article on the fire and definitely learned more information. Sources are all properly listed on the page & it does contain additional information.

• I didn't know that the fire sparked interest in uncovering corruption, nor that there had been arrests made from it.

• Merely because the protests are "nowhere near the level of Serbia or Turkey" does not make them undeserving to be reported on.

• If the nominated page contained false information or was an exact replica of the Macedonia Pulse Fire page, I could understand, but comparing and belittling their community's response of mourning and protest due to similar events happening elsewhere is a terrible reason to submit this for deletion. FoxFables (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is nothing personal and it is not meant to belittle. There is already sufficient coverage in the main article. The article as it stands is a redundant content fork. Here is a cited opinion from 26 March: it is too early to predict whether this national indignation will turn into a more organised wave of protest against corruption and failed democratic institutions that have been scourging the country ever since its establishment as an independent state. Like I have written above, if something changes in the future, this article can be recreated. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source . 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC) StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Kočani nightclub fire. If there is a "lack of media coverage", as MrFool Mapping says, it is a clear indicator that the topic is not yet notable. As StephenMacky outlines, as it stands the article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and if media coverage appears in the future, the article can be recreated. However, we cannot predict future events or coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does seem to be a lack of significant coverage, and there is also the concern of WP:NOTNEWS. Brat Forelli🦊 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant fork, nothing there as of right now that isn't in the main article. Grumpylawnchair [ALT] (talk) 13:30, 7 April 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.

Ramadan in Turkey

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

This is one of a series of articles by the same editor; I'd bundle them if I knew how. All the articles are like this, they are not about Ramadan customs peculiar to one country but are merely descriptions of common customs. The long list of foods (I've edited out the more preposterous bits) are likewise merely lists of commonn foods of the country, such as (in this case) kebaps. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Islam, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prob delete - seems to me that the topic likely is notable in the sense that there probably are distinctive Turkish cultural practices during this religious time. But I'm also not convinced that the page, as it is currently framed, addresses that. Maybe someone else could try again later and make a better stab. JMWt (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do the same with all the other articles (or at least draftify). Agree with nom and JMWt that, from what I know about Ramadan and Turkish culture and from looking at the sources, much of the content is pretty generic and not necessarily specific to Turkey. The sources are not the highest quality don't really specify what makes Turkish observances unique among countries. Obviously social visits and common dinners are not any different from elsewhere. The author just translated this from Arabic wiki, but it's pretty poor writing to say lentil soup or lahmacun are Ramadan food when Turks eat these every day (if I'm wrong, the article should be clearer). Ramadan#Cultural practices is quite short and should be expanded to cover the instances where there are significant practices that may not be universal, perhaps expanded to a Ramadan by country page or similar that puts differences in context, but not standalone articles. I mean, Ramadan in the United States does have a couple US-specific facts, but then generic crap that there are Tarawih prayers just like everywhere else! Reywas92^Talk 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article have been created as part of the Wiki Loves Ramadan Editathon. The articles hav been created in various languages in addition to English. Tuhin (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is covered in many English-language books, not all of which are accessible through Google Books, but here are a few: How to Be Amazing at Speaking Turkish: Mastering the Heart of Türkiye [13], beginning of Chapter 7; Intellectuals in the Modern Islamic World: Transmission, Transformation, Communication [14] (the index shows that Ramadan in Turkey is covered on page 298, which is not part of the preview); World and Its Peoples Volume 1 [15] (again, the index lists Ramadan in Turkey on page 835, which is not shown in the preview). This book Introduction to Ramadan [16] may not be reliable (it looks self-published) but has info about Ramadan in Turkey which could be used to search for other sources (eg lighting traditional Ottoman lanterns apparently called fenerbahcesi). There are also several articles and chapters - "Celebratıon of Ramadan: The Case of Turkey" [17], "Does Ramadan Affect Happiness? Evidence from Turkey" [18]; "Aspects of Underlying Ramadan Consumption Patterns in Turkey" [19]; "Evaluation of the impact of the month of Ramadan on traffic accidents" [20]; "Can Religiosity be Sensed with Satellite Data? An Assessment of Luminosity during Ramadan in Turkey" [21]; etc. The topic is clearly notable - I don't think the fact that this article could be improved and expanded is a reason to delete it. I note that this article has been translated from the corresponding article in Arabic. Turkish Wikipedia seems not to have a specific article about Ramazan in Türkiye, but the article on Ramazan has some info specific to Turkey. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War

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

There is no conflict such as the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War", sources do not support it and provide no significant coverage to a conflict under this name. This article is a part of a series of fringe pseudohistorical articles created for ethno-religious POV pushing. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article, if ends up on a section on Wikipedia's finest list of hoax articles I wouldn't be surprised. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Sources are quite clear in establishing the notability of this conflict, the nominator is currently on his spree of nominating my articles for deletion just to take revenge for this SPI:
- [22]: 3 pages of coverage.
- [23]: Another 3 pages of coverage.
- [24]: Same. Heraklios 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can read only snippets of one source that I looked for, but at the very least the people purported to be involved in this conflict existed, and skirmishes are referred to. Unlikely to be a complete hoax from what I can see Recon rabbit 19:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage exists and isn't a hoax. The article is fine. This seems to be part some sort of revenge spree. RachelTensions (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete sources exist that proves the content is genuine. But the article title is indeed pseudohistory. The available content could be merged into any of the parent articles. Academic sources lacks covering this as an individual war.Borax || (talk to Borax) 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per An editor from Mars. None of the sources provided by article creator Heraklios establish the authenticity of this conflict, let alone significant coverage. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject matter is clearly notable when viewed through a neutral point of view. The only issue seems to be the title of the article, which could be changed later. Please refrain from filing articles for deletion simply to escalate disputes between editors or groups of editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. AlvaKedak (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage in the sources is not enough and none of the sources support this neologism made up by the author "Ahluwalia - Ramgarhia war" , in fact sources do not even support that this was a war, sources at best refer to it as skirmishes and do not provide significant coverage to them. Anyway given the author's history of making copyvio, I doubt this article is free of it. The relevant details (not closely paraphrased) can be covered at the articles of relevant personalities. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Campaign

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

Article describes a 1775 clash between Sikh Misls but fails to show its a distinct, notable event beyond skirmishes already covered in articles like Kanhaiya Misl, Bhangi Misl, or Sikh Confederacy. "Pathankot Campaign" isn’t a recognized term in historical scholarship, also WP:RS don’t treat it as a standalone event separate from typical inter-Misl strife. It leans on a narrow set of sources, like Gandhi (1999) and Gupta (1939), lack the mainstream weight or specificity to confirm details. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Pakistan and Punjab. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sikhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "Pathankot Campaign" is itself made up. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yet another revenge nomination, [25][26][27] lol. Just take all of my articles for deletion. Not to mention the nominator has used AI to write this frivolous rationale. Like they don't even bother to go through Pathankot Campaign#References. Check these sources: (2 pages), (2 pages). Heraklios 16:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, this is kinda funny to me, few days back, some dude was all over me for grammar slip-ups, and now this! Anyway, seems like you’re pretty worked up and running low on solid points. I did my WP:BEFORE check before tossing this article up for deletion. Check it yourself: Google Books (nothing relevant), Google Scholar (nothing), normal search (nothing), News articles(empty too). Looks to me like its got zero notability in mainstream sources. NXcrypto Message 20:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never even crossed paths with you, so don’t go saying this is some revenge nomination, that's nonsense. NXcrypto Message 20:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re pointing to these Internet Archive links like they’re gold:[28] and [29], but let’s be real, its just Hari Ram Gupta again, and that’s a shaky leg to stand on. Gupta’s stuff, like from 1939/1944 or whenever, isn’t some mainstream heavyweight and doesn’t prove “Pathankot Campaign” is a legit standalone thing. I dug through WP:BEFORE, Google Books, Scholar, news, nothing calls this a distinct event. You wanna keep it? Show me something solid, some mainstream scholar references, not just Gupta’s dusty WP:RAJ work. NXcrypto Message 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only the subject fails GNG but the article is seemingly pushing ethnic POV. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't it just be rewritten if the tone is biased? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there seems to be some significant and reliable coverage from scholars, historians, etc. The article looks a little biased, and there are some strong words like "enraged", but a rewrite can fix that - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to cite the sources you believe have provided enough coverage. I don't see any scholarly sources that have. NXcrypto Message 07:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WAMPOC/WAMPEX

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

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish the conference as a prominent part within the energy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Africa, and Ghana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WAMPOC/WAMPEX meets WP:EVENT and has received significant independent coverage from reputable sources. Find coverages here [30], [31] , [32] [33] Robertjamal12 ~🔔 10:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep LLM'ed/boilerplate rationale without one original word from the nominator themselves. Nathannah • 📮 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Singh's Invasions of Jammu

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

This article fails WP:GNG & there is no WP:SIGCOV in sources for these minor plundering raids/conflicts. This article also treats these two sackings as one conflict which is pseudohistorical and not backed by sources. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This battle lacks significant coverage. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Captain AmericanBurger1775. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above votes are either WP:PERNOM or WP:JUSTNOTABLE, not to mention nom has nominated this article for deletion out of his revenge campaign for filing this SPI. Amusing ain't this? I don't care how much of their group member would annoy me by apparently doing such one liner votes and spurious nominations, I just have to make my keep stance clear for our good faith editors. Here are some sources to establish the notability: (p. 309) (p. 335-340). Heraklios 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination still stands, the sources call it a sacking not an invasion, evidently both are discussed separately and not portrayed as part of the same conflict like you are doing. Even then the coverage is not significant with only a single page worth of mention in the first one and second one provides coverage only to the second sacking and that is already covered at Maha Singh and Haqiqat Singh Kanhaiya's articles, there is no need for this article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your deducing method is literally taking us to nothing, that's not how it's done. Regardless of article title the article stands out on the base of coverage. (p. 309): "Mahan Singh's first sack of Jammu" and [https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IvTheSikhCommonwealthOrRiseAndFallOfSikh/page/n349/mode/2up (p. 339): "Second pillage of Jammu by Mahan Singh". When the historian has already affixed the chronology, you are proposing to split the article based on your own spurious assertion. If only a talk page discussion was sufficient for the article title. Heraklios 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misrepresent me, I never proposed splitting this article. These two were minor conflicts that you have combined together in this article, this topic is already covered at the Maha Singh. Absolutely no need for a separate article only for POV pushing. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in Gupta 1999, authored by a well-known historian and published by a well-known publisher: thus it can be considered reliable. Gandhi 1999 and other sources provide further coverage, and link the raids by calling them "first" and "second". Article needs cleanup and probably a rename, but otherwise passes WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TNT case, all of the content is closely paraphrased and contains copyright issues. The effort to fix it is not worth it. Note that most of these are consecutive sentences in source and article.

Analysis
Source309-313	Article
In the first expedition the people of Jammu alone had been sacked. The Raja’s palaces and treasury had remained untouched, for the simple reason that the loot acquired from them was enormous. Now was the turn of the Kaja to be fleeced.	Only the inhabitants of Jammu had been sacked during the first invasion. Because of the size of the plunder taken from them, the Raja's palaces and treasury had not been damaged
Brij Raj Dev returned with his treasure from Vaishno Devi to Jammu shortly after Mahan Singh’s retirement. The people also settled down in their peaceful avocations in due course of time. Two years had elapsed. Mahan Singh all of a sudden led a second expedition to Jammu at the head of 5,000 men. The government and the people were taken unawares. The remaining riches of the people, the Raja’s entire treasury and armoury were all looted.	Soon after Mahan Singh retired, Brij Raj Dev returned to Jammu with his treasure from Vaishno Devi. In due time, the villagers also made their homes in their quiet activities. It had been two years. Suddenly, Mahan Singh was in charge of 5,000 troops on a second invasion of Jammu. Both the people and the administration were caught off guard. The Raja's entire treasury, armoury, and remaining wealth were all plundered.
Huge quantities of gold, silver, ornaments, diamonds, pearls and jewellery ali worth a crore of rupees fell into Mahan Singh’s hands. Immense arms and ammunition were taken possession of. The neighbouring chiefs were frightened. They paid tribute to Mahan Singh, and saved their territories from his depredations.	Maha Singh came into possession of enormous amounts of gold, silver, jewelry, gems, pearls, and decorations valued at a crore of rupees. Massive quantities of ammo and weapons were seized. The chiefs who lived nearby were terrified. They paid tribute to Mahan Singh and protected their lands from his ravages
Not a single house or place escaped. Women were stripped of all their ornaments and costly clothes. Floors were dug in search of buried wealth. Plunder lasted for three days and nights. Loaded with enormous booty worth more than a crore Mahan Singh returned to Gujranwala.	No house was left intact, for women were stripped of their jewelry and ornaments, floors were dug up in pursuit of hidden riches, and the city's treasures were plundered. The value of the loot amounted to more than one crore rupees
Mahan Singh assured them that he had not come to plunder, but to establish his authority. In the night he surrounded the town and closed all exits	Having promised them that he had come to take over and not to plunder. But at night, he commanded his soldiers to encircle the city and seal all the gates.

Koshuri ^(グ) 04:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regardless of the name of the article, it has enough coverage.The arguments provided in favour of deletion are poor, the article does not make much use of close paraphrasing, not that it would have been a problem as WP:TNT is used when the article contains significant amounts of copyright violations which according to Earwig is unlikely (see [34] ) AlvaKedak (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A total non-argument this is. The issue is of close paraphrasing, which is something that the earwig cannot catch. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might be interested in WP:CCI, for now the article must to be kept. We are not deleting articles for dubious close paraphrasing issues. You can start a Copyright investigation for that. AlvaKedak (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 21:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: the two book sources seem ok, not extensive coverage of these events, but I wouldn't expect there to be much. Needs a rewrite and some of the close paraphrasing is worrysome, but that's not a reason to delete this. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh–Wahhabi War

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

This is a pseudo-historical fringe article, there is no conflict such as the Sikh–Wahhabi War. This article is misrepresenting and confusing the Barelvi movement for Wahhabism and is compiling disparate conflicts between ethnic groups as a singular religious conflict. No scholars support this narrative. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly pseudohistorical concept with no significant coverage. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally out of a revenge nomination for filing this SPI, pfft. I'm afraid I can't win against their canvassing but I'd try my best to give a comment which makes good faith editors turn into the side of keep.
- Oh for God's sake there's a whole chapter which is 9 pages dedicated to this conflict:
  - www.DiscoverSikhism.com. History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore (Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839). pp. 159–167.
- Not enough? Here's 22 pages of coverage:
  - Khān, Mu'Īn-Ud-Dīn Aḥmad (1968). "Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd's Campaign Against the Sikhs". Islamic Studies. 7 (4): 317–338. ISSN 0578-8072.
- Darn it, here's a whole book based on it (crux: pp. 58-131):
  - Adeem (2019-12-18). Sayyid Ahmad Barailvi His Movement And Lagacy From The Pukhtun Perspective By Dr. Altaf Qadir.

Please see more sources in Sikh–Wahhabi War#References which have coverage ranging from pp 2-5, I'm sorry if I'm being a bit too informal, but I'm frustrated because I can't bypass the "Delete" votes by the SPI gang and it looks like they will succeed in taking down a massive notable article. Heraklios 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove how these sources are academic? You are simply falsifying them. Had such a war happened, you could find better sources. Nevertheless, you are falsifying your sources. None of your non academic sources prove how this pseudohistorical concept you came up with is true, including the title itself which is ridiculously incorrect, Wahhabism had no presence in India at the time, Barelvi movement was not Wahhabism. That itself proves that this notion of "Sikh-Wahhabi war" is something you cooked up.

Instead of mentioning a failed SPI, and playing a victim by making personal attacks, you need to focus only on this AfD. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially: Sage Publishing & JSTOR are reliable publishers. We don't need any introduction for Hari Ram Gupta. "You are simply falsifying them. Had such a war happened, you could find better sources. Nevertheless, you are falsifying your sources. None of your non academic sources": Let me be clear, you're proclaiming that given sources are "non-academic"? at this point please respectfully withdraw your frivolous but more like revenge nomination. We can deal with the article title and content issues on the talk page. Heraklios 16:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is not a publisher. That Sage publication you are citing is not about this war. You are still yet to explain how any of those sources give significant coverage to the subject in question. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable and not supported by any of the sources mentioned above, regardless of the bad faith assumed by the article creator, and their clubbing of desperate ethnic conflicts under their own neologism. NXcrypto Message 03:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in the sources but I am not satisfied with the title of the page. The title should be either Sikh Barelvi War or Syed Barelvi holy war against Sikhs. Syed was the only one per source who adopted Wahhabi and it was not a whole community of Wahhabi that was part of holy war. Title change and some improvement needs done. RangersRus (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are plenty of reliable sources/info to keep this article up. However as per the statement made by RangersRus, I believe the title for the page should be changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twarikh e Khalsa (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a perfectly fine article with significant coverage available. A discussion could be had to come up with a better title but that doesn't warrant deletion. RachelTensions (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TNT, I cross checked some of the sentences in the article and it turns out almost all of it is closely paraphrased. These statements follow the same sequence with minor substitution. This is what I found by only checking one source , I wonder how much of it is copyvio if we were to compare all the sources especially given that the author's contribution history is merely closely paraphrasing sources, suffice to say that keeping this article in current form is not a good idea.

Analysis
Source160-63	Article
The Sayyid's forces consisted of Hindustanis, the Kandharis, Yusafzais and Khataks. The Ghazis were led by Allahbakhsh Khan and the assault was delivered in the early hours of the morning of 21 December, 1826, when the Sikhs lay fast asleep in the intense cold	Ahmad Barelvi, at the head of an allied army of Hindustanis, Kandharis, Yusafzais, and Khattaks, planned a surprise attack against the Sikh troops. The attack, led by Allahbakhsh Khan, was launched in the early hours of 21 December 1826, catching the Sikhs off guard as they slept in the cold.
The first onslaught many Sikhs were killed. Budh Singh immediately organised his troops in battle array and fell upon the Ghazis, and repulsed them. They left the field and retired into the hills	The first attack led to considerable losses among the Sikhs. However, Budh Singh quickly rallied his men and launched a counterattack which forced the enemy to retreat. The Ghazis retreated from the field and the hills.
Budh Singh had won his spurs, but did not follow up his victory. About 500 Sikhs were killed in all, while the Sayyid lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna and their commander Allahbakhsh Khan.	While the Sikhs held their ground, they had suffered about 500 casualties. The army of the Syed lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna, and their commander, Allahbakhsh Khan.
The Sayyid shifted his headquarters to Sitana at the foot of Mahaban mountains on the western side of the Indus in the heart of Yusafzais.	Syed Ahmad Barelvi shifted his base to Sitana, situated at the foot of the Mahaban mountains on the west bank of the Indus River, in the territory of the Yusafzais
Now the Pathans from all around began to flock under the green flag of the Sayyid. In two months their number grew to 50,000. The Barakzai chiefs of Peshawar with an army of 20,000 strong and 8 pieces of cannon joined them.	Pashtun tribes from various areas began to gather under the command of Syed Ahmad Barelvi, and in two months, their number reached 100,000 men. The Barakzai chiefs of Peshawar joined the movement, and their army consisted of 20,000 men and 8 guns
a Sikh force under Sardar Budh Singh Sandhanwalia concentrated at the village of Pirpai, 32 km south of Peshawar and 30 km from Akora. The Sikh army, comprising about 10,000 troops and 12 cannon, was reinforced by Raja Gulab Singh, Raja Suchet Singh, and Atariwala Sardars	A considerable Sikh force under Budh Singh Sandhanwalia was concentrated at the small village of Pirpai near Saidu situated 32 km south of Peshawar and 30 km from Akora. Budh Singh was joined by Raja Gulab Singh, Raja Suchait Singh and Atariwala sardars. The Sikh army numbered about 10,000 with 12 cannon
The Sikhs lay in their trenches under heavy assaults of the Ghazis for a few days. When their supplies were about to be exhausted, Budh Singh led the attack. The Sikh guns created havoc among the enemy. They took to flight. About 6,000 Mujahidin were killed and wounded. Murray says that the Sikh horsemen gave the fleeing Ghazis a hot pursuit "each Sikh killing fifteen to twenty of the runaways". The Sayyid fled into the Swat hills. Ranjit Singh sent dresses of honour to Budh Singh Sandhanwalia and other commanders.	The Sikhs held their ground even though the Ghazis pressed them heavily for a long time. When their supplies began to run low, Budh Singh made a sally. The Sikh artillery inflicted heavy losses on the enemy, forcing them to retreat. It is estimated that nearly 6,000 Mujahideen were killed or wounded in the battle. Historian Murray affirms that the Sikh cavalry followed the fleeing Ghazis, and every horseman is said to have slain fifteen to twenty of the retreating warriors. Syed Ahmad Barelvi himself took shelter in the Swat hills the jihad movement suffered a crushing defeat. In recognition of the Sikh triumph, Maharaja Ranjit Singh sent congratulatory presents to Budh Singh Sandhanwalia and the other leaders
Sayyid Ahmad began to live with Fatah Khan of Panjtar, a fanatic and one of the bitterest enemies of the Sikhs. With his help the Sayyid commenced coercing the neighbouring chiefs to support him fully in the Jihad against the Sikhs. Ahmad Khan of Hoti, for his lukewarm response, was killed in* an action. The Sayyid brought the entire Yusafzai valley under his sway. Mir Babu Khan of Sadhum, a town on the Kalapani river in Peshawar district was subdued. He looked upon Barakzai sardars of Peshawar as his enemies, and incited the Khaibaris to harass them. Syed Ahmad Barelvi took refuge with Fatah Khan of Panjtar, a staunch opponent of Sikh rule. With the support of Fatah Khan	Syed Ahmad began consolidating his power in the area by forcing the neighboring tribal chiefs to unconditionally support his jihad against the Sikhs. This campaign included the coercion or subjugation of leaders like Mir Babu Khan of Sadhum and Ahmad Khan of Hoti, the latter being killed for his insufficient commitment. Syed Ahmad's influence was extended over the Yusafzai Valley and tribes such as the Afridis, Mohmands, and Khalils were won over to his cause against the Sikhs.

Koshuri ^(グ) 14:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Close paraphrasing together with the baseless notion of "Sikh-Wahhabi war" shows that there is no need for this article. It is misleading to have one. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seriously, are we really doing this? It is not productive to bludgeon in an AfD , especially because concerns about close paraphrasing should be raised at WP:CCI, not here.

The article must be Speedy Kept as per the arguments and sources provided above. We should not allow a good amount of notable articles to be removed through the deletion process for these reasons.

If this is being driven by personal conflicts , then I urge you not to turn this encyclopaedia into a battleground or create unnecessary backlogs for the sake of “revenge”. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Sikh Barelvi war. Nomination is poor which has no WP:BEFORE base. Agreed with the above raised battleground issues as well. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Brooklyn Park TBM-700 crash

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

The article was WP:TOOSOON and the creator has a history of making articles too soon. I only made it cause there was a proposed deletion warning and as of now though, there is more information and no survivors, which might make it be able to stay. If the pilot is the only occupant though, we should delete the article. -Bloxzge 025 ツ — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait and see with more information if this is going to be significant or not.Lucthedog2 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and Minnesota. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 30." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, single fatality incident as confirmed by emergency responders on scene, see ASN database for updated narrative. A crash in a highly populated area does not make such crash notable as we shouldnt base articles of what coulda or woulda happened. ASN Database Lolzer3k 14:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just like the Learjet fiasco that happened in Philadelphia, A plane crashed into a highly populated area mind you, just like the learjet in Philly. The page still needs to be updated with info, and needs to be currently updated, as an investigation into this crash is currently going on. I also agree with the people claiming that this article is "too soon" but just like the learjet crash, an investigation is going on. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just like the Philadelphia crash though as the plane was a medical jet with six occupants including a pediatric kid. It also crashed in a populated area but with a fatality and dozens of injuries. Also, with every plane crash there's an investigation, so that's not a reason to keep it. Plane crashes with a single fatality happen everyday, populated area or not, without articles. This one is no exception. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Note above arguement by user Shaniapickle seems to be a case of WP:OSE, invalidating their vote. Lolzer3k 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this was not an important crash in any sense after all. Lucthedog2 (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree since there were no survivors out of the plane that has a capacity of about 7. I only started this when the article was WP:TOOSOON and when a proposed deletion nomination was posted~~.

Delete. Aviation accidents and incidents keep happening (https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/monthly.aspx) and a fair proportion get reported on some news. The entries that do deserve articles are those which are landmark and follow in radical safety procedure or technology changes (e.g. UA232, or read https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/inadequacies-and-a-misunderstanding/ etc). Waiting with a non-notable article promotes speculations which I feel unhealthy same as explained eg at https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/april/pilot/safety-spotlight-lessons-from-tragedy BACbKA (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTTOOSOON. Coverage by independent news sources. The fact that aviation incidents keep happening and reported on does not negate its notability. — ERcheck (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
National level news coverage, including CNN and ABC News. — ERcheck (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was WP:TOOSOON as the creator made the article within an hour of the crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @ERcheck

Waleed (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: run-of-the-mill light aircraft crash, fails WP:EVENT and in particular WP:EVENTCRIT #4. Also WP:TOOSOON, though of course WP:USUAL caveats apply in the unlikely event that this turns out to have WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. only 1 death. 125.227.26.172 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only news coverage, no secondary analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news about this crash since the day of the crash, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROTM. Protoeus (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anoka County–Blaine Airport, the flight's ultimate destination, where short mention should be made as is usually done with aviation incidents. Nathannah • 📮 18:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little coverage has been made on it in the past few days and it has been dwindling. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill news story with no secondary coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Anoka County–Blaine Airport. Run of the mill accident so not worthy of a standalone article, but can be mentioned at the article for the airport. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manupur

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

Non-notable battle; article is cobbled together from passing mentions in various sources and padded out with the "background" and "aftermath" sections. Sources that do exist do not properly verify the content. For example, the date of 10 March 1748 is cited to a book that only says "In a battle fought near Sirhind early in 1748 Qamruddin received a fatal wound but his son Muin ul-Mulk defeated Ahmad Shah Abdali with the support of Safdar Jang." Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani is a possible redirect target, but I'm not sure it's a good one, and it may be better just to delete this. If redirected, request that the closing admin delete and redirect, as similar articles have been deleted for copyvio reasons and these are frequent sockfarm targets. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with your other nominations, I disagree with this one and feel Manupur is more relevant. I've seen more significant sources cover it, page could generally be improved though, no doubt. Here's some sources:

[35] [36] [37] Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Just fyi, we usually use the bolded word "keep" to oppose AfDs.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Noorullah (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Lahore (1748): and REVDEL any revision that contains a COPYVIO. Page-protect at the first sign of sockpuppetry. A section at the target already contains all sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 18:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sourcing is decent and can be improved. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Amsterdam stabbing attack

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

Minor incident - no deaths. WP:GNG is dubious (consider WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS). Very unlikely to have enduring effects; if they appear the article can be restored once enduring coverage is shown to exist. We are getting really too inclusionist with minor incidents like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Netherlands. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. By Dutch standards this is a major attack and the national and international coverage reflects that. The stabbing took place in the very heart of Amsterdam which further contributes to the interest. In the deletion rationale, nominator points at WP:SINGLEEVENT: "People notable for only one event". An attack is not a person so this does not support deletion. WP:NOTNEWS does not support deletion either: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. The references used fall outside the domain defined by the policy. gidonb (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By Dutch standards this is a major attack" - yet no Dutch Wikipedia article? And I see this as a routine reporting on a newsworthy but unencyclopedic crime that will be forgotten by everyone in few days._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage continues. Nlwiki is not known for quality. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😅 very convinient explanation Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help! If you're curious, you can read more about Nlwiki's quality here or check out the ongoing coverage in major Dutch and international media. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep broadly covered, it happened in the center of big city. It's terrorist attack, to terror there no need to someone be killed. Many nations involved: US, NL, PL, BE victims, UK citizen's arrest and probably Ukrainian perpetrator; that 6 nations involved. That's international terrorism Bildete (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. For now the sources and event is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. Ιf it has a more permanent impact (which I very much doubt) it can be recreated. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you doubt that the Dutch produce books, newspapers, magazines, news shows, and conduct research discussing, among others, mass stabbings? gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But is this an enduring event? Without that, it's just news that will be forgotten soon if it hasn't been already. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a hot topic every day https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/04/amsterdam-stabbing-suspect-had-terrorist-intent-investigators/ and will be for a long time. Also it's historical event first event of Ukrainian terrorism in western Europe as 2022 missile explosion in Poland and it happened in city center of big city, huge news, international victims Bildete (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, what is the connection of this to the 2022 missile explosion in Poland? Here a crazy guy stabbed few folks, none fatally. To me this is not a notable event, not until its coverage is enduring (as in, it is referenced in future years, preferably by academic sources). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was significant because for first time West civilians been killed by Ukrainian missile, this is one of the first case of Ukrainian nationalist terrorize the West and had really huge international covered, also because a lot of West citizens were involved as victims Bildete (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think you are making a good case that this article can be abused by Russian disinformation and propaganda, and we should delete it ASAP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Come back when this is a case study or books are being written about it. Secondary coverage beyond the news is the bare minimum. Not sure what some of the keep votes are trying to accomplish with rationales that have nothing to do with the sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. it's historical event first event of Ukrainian terrorism in western Europe, actually there is only suspicion that this could be some kind of terrorism, though no indication whatsoever that it is "Ukrainian terrorism" (is there such a thing? Are its goals pro-Ukrainian or anti-Ukrainian?). It could equally be a motiveless crime committed by a disturbed person, who ist happened to come from Donetsk. {{TQ|Ιf it has a more permanent impact … it can be recreated)).Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's looks like the only reason to delete is because Ukrainians don't want to see article about Ukrainian terrorist. That a significant event that been and still is broadly covered Bildete (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me it looks like you're just hellbent on trying to connect this event to Ukrainian nationalism and "terrorism" because of the perpetrator's nationality. THEFREEENCYCLOPEDlA (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Cricket World Cup

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV, thus fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a redirect to Indoor cricket be sensible here? Where a very brief summary might be included - but it would be very, very brief. No problems with deleting this either if anyone has a view on it Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~Keep~~ There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).

The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[38] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[39] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.

And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The newspaper coverage is primary...

I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct. Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:

"A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:

In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.

https://archive.is/CzIV8

Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence

Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/

The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's look at each of these:

The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. N
The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. N
The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. N

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.

It only requires a few things:

At least one step removed from an event
Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas

And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:

Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument

Do you have a different understanding of the word?

And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?

Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.

As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. N Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."

But there's also this qualification:
"For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."

I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
"Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news

So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
"This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'

By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.
Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.^[1]^: 69.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [40] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

2025 ICC Champions Trophy group stage

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

Stage articles for a non-world cup tournament with just 15 matches, no need for separate stage articles as all this could be included within the parent article without being WP:TOOLONG. Vestrian24Bio 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 ICC Champions Trophy. Veldsenk (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Isla Bell

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. Sources are all thing happened with little commentary, making them WP:PRIMARYNEWS PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't notable, very little coverage, Wikipedia:Lasting, and several other reasons previously listed. ^Wiinter_U 01:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I do not know what the moderators, other editors would like. Australia is different to the US/UK - we do not have talk shows that discuss events. We have the news bulletins on television/radio and the newspapers. This is an on-going case and the comments section of any article about this (when opened) shows how outraged Australians are over this.

A young woman was taken, murdered, then her body dumped - Wikipedia has articles about a lot less. The trial, details of this are still yet to come; anticipating it to be a big trial with lots of information/evidence etc to be released (because we are in pre-trial stage so not everything is released - that would destroy the prosecutors case) someone took the initiative to start a page and start compiling the information and what because the Made for TV Movie isn't already being developed it's not enough for editors to warrant a page.

For the record there are other things happening in Australia as well; the Brisbane Olympic Games finally announced what they are doing, we had the Federal Budget handed down, we have an impending Election which is all taking up news time but because this isn't top story every night "WELP The world doesn't need to know about another woman killed by a man"? It's already a growing pandemic and you want to be part of hiding the numbers and sweeping stories about it under the rug?

Let's not forget the precedent you are setting here now... any crime that happens in the world NOTHING is allowed to be posted here until the court case is finalised and ALL evidence is available. NOTED! Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)— Thepeoplesdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please read it WP:NEVENT. This wouldn't be notable if it had happened in America either. There are a lot of murders. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources I found are from November 2024. No lasting impact or coverage. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an on-going case with numerous court cases to play out. There were articles posted today and there is outrage in Australia about this. Did you bother to attempt to search before deciding a case you have never heard of isn't worthy? Why because it's Australian? Do we have to tear buildings down or ensure it is the only thing anyone in the country can think about for it to be worthy of a wikipedia article.

Thought this of all places would be one you would need to fact check or resource check... guess not! Just list things for deletion we don't like... wait here I'll go get a list of pages I don't like and we can list them for deletion too. Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EVENT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LASTING. I suggest you get more experience editing other articles and contributing to other AfDs to understand how deletion works. Not everything reported in the media gets an article. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:EVENT in my opinion, well cited event that may have more coverage in the future. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the reasons for nomination. Several articles discussed the event in the context of demonstrations opposing violence against women. It's more than just thing happened. I was able to find coverage in both Australian and UK sources, some of it from October 2024 and now March 2025. The multi-country scope and significant national coverage in Australia suggests notability to me as this is not an event just isolated to local news. I have added updates to the article with additional sources. A quick google news search turns up articles from October 2024 and March 2025, and please do due diligence commenting in favor of keep or delete. Coverage will likely continue as the full trial begins and I don't think the duration of coverage will be an issue long-term.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is borderline for me. Hassett (2024) looks like it gives coverage of the event as a notable example as opposed to news coverage. Roulston (2024) might indicate this as well, but it's a stretch. If there's a slightly more clear cut example of using this as a WP:CASESTUDY or becoming a go-to example in the literature, then it would be a definite keep. I'm not interested in coverage that might exist some day in the future (that's a fancy way of saying it doesn't exist), or continued breaking news coverage as it comes out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is still being used as an example of violence against women in Australia during coverage of anti-violence rallies in a newspaper of record: [41]. Uncertain if that will nudge minds in one way or another (I've added the reference to the article). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. The claim that all coverage in the sources is from November 2024 is false as a review of the article clearly shows. But please, no conspiracy theories, these type of crime articles regularly appear in AFD discussions and is not influenced by the location of the crime, the outcome is determined the coverage of the incident by reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's an ongoing criminal court case. I'm not Australian but I suspect that there are similar regular reporting restrictions on legacy media during active criminal litigation as in the UK. Nothing we do here should impede the operation of a fair trial IMO, and there's no overwhelming reason why we need to write this story until all the court time is completed. JMWt (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reason to delete articles on wikipedia? Unless the information in the article is original research, all of the information is from third parties. Wikipedia isn't censored WP:UNCENSORED, and I'm not sure how this article would impede a fair trial. Is the argument here to delete any article as soon as there are related court cases? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well I don't want to try getting outside of my lane in terms of detailed knowledge about media law however the situation relating to reporting current legal cases in the UK (and likely Australia and other countries with similar legal systems) is different to America. Here, judges tell jurors that they should disregard anything they hear or read outside of the courtroom and the media can be in breach of the law - even for repeating "common knowledge" facts about the case whilst a trial is going on. It isn't about censorship, it's about respect for the legal system as it works in different jurisdictions.

As to your other point, I believe Wikipedia should be following the media rules of jurisdictions like other media, which may well involve removing pages from view if they include information that would not be published in other media during a criminal trial.

In this particular case I think that's getting into the weeds as it looks like there may only be a fairly short delay until the court case starts and hopefully concludes anyway. So there would likely be more material to write a better page in a few months anyhow. JMWt (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia should refrain from publishing material that wouldn't be published in any particular territory or country's media is an extreme minority view that goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a deletion argument. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this has a fair amount of coverage, and now has 17 sources some of which are news stories I have added. The case is quite infamous as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having fair amount of coverage doesn't override WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please re-review the article in light of the new sources that have been added to the content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Prime Minister Cup (Women)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : [42][43][44][45][46][47] these are links of the coverage of the tournament from the prominent newpaper for this season which should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.Godknowme1 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some~~ All of these are WP:ROUTINE. Vestrian24Bio 02:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 & 3 are the same link. Vestrian24Bio 04:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godknowme1. Enough coverage exists. Veldsenk (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are WP:ROUTINE coverage only. Vestrian24Bio 04:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a deeper look at whether these sources are routine, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, routine coverage, when expanded out into a higher density and frequency on a single subject, no longer becomes "routine". This is why things like the American Super Bowl are perfectly notable. No need to discriminate here if there are differences of the types of outlets that bring this to notability based on language or regional differences alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:OSE an argument to avoid in AfD. Vestrian24Bio 15:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an argument I made. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Sri Lanka Cricket Super 4's T20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1. Request a rename and merge to 2014 in Sri Lankan cricket after a proper consensus or do a WP:RFC in general. It is WP:TE to bring T20 status tournaments to WP:AFD from countries which are underrepresented on Wikipedia and should not continue. Veldsenk (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just having T20 status does not make it notable. Read WP:OFFICIALCRICKET - not all T20 league are notable unless they pass standard notability crit (GNG). Vestrian24Bio 14:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I do not agree that this AfD or similar rise to the level of full on tendentious editing as suggested by the other comment, I do think that the notability for this is shown to be adequate for the subject matter to retain the article after a search. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Twenty20 Cup

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Super 8 T20 Cup was much more selective than the National T20 Cup, had T20 status, and was the precursor of the Pakistan Super League. Pakistani publications regularly covered it while the event was ongoing ([48], [49], [50], [51]), and I'm sure there must be some offline coverage of it in almanacs. Since Wikipedia also functions as an almanac (WP:5P1), we must cover T20 matches as part of our almanac coverage.

The tournament was definitely notable, but I'm not sure about the individual seasons that were not nominated. In any case, the matches held in those seasons shoulde be part of our almanac coverage. You could request a merge and renaming of those seasons so that they resemble maybe in the form of 2011 season in Pakistani cricket, and so on, and add those matches there, but it is not for WP:AFD to decide. Please initiate a WP:RFC on WP:CRIC, so that all members are on the same page and we do not have selective purges due to the lack of WP:AFD participation. Veldsenk (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches (International cricket in 2010–11) but articles for domestic cricket are still missing. Veldsenk (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the point about the almanac is a good one from Veldsenk. This article also is notable when factoring Pakistani sources in addition. Which is permissible. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Veldsenk and Iljhgtn: see WP:OSE, which is an argument to avoid in afd, but that's what you're doing here. Vestrian24Bio 15:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? You cite WP:OSE, which states, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist..." Neither of us were making arguments on the grounds of "...whether other articles do or do not exist...", but were instead arguing in support of a Keep based in part on WP:5P1. @Veldsenk might have more to add? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches" - which is part WP:OSE.

WP:5P1 also includes WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Vestrian24Bio 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 National Cricket League Twenty20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV for a separate season article. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for same reasons. Vestrian24Bio 05:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* – This article is notable due to coverage by reliable sources like ESPNcricinfo and other relevant media outlets. The sources have been added to support the article's notability.

--Sakib H Hridoy (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a lot of offline and Bengali language sources ([52]) regarding NCL T20. I consider it to pass WP:NEVENT/WP:SIGCOV. This is a top-tier domestic league of a full member nation, seasonal articles are obviously needed for a proper arrangement of information and convenience for the readers. Apart from that, my concern is about the nominator, who had run a deletion campaign of several articles of cricket tournaments with exactly the same rationale Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG without a detailed explanation. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTSEVENT would be the appropriate guideline here, and these are WP:ROUTINE sources as in the WP:NEVENT guidelines as well. Vestrian24Bio 13:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Robocric. It was a major cricket event in Bangladesh. Veldsenk (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I view the available sources as making a sufficient case for notability. It could make sense, down the road, to merge this content elsewhere, but there is no deadline.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep, when taking the Bengali sources into account notability can be sufficient. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[1] Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

[1]