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

2025 Georgia Meteor Event

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear why the creator moved this back to mainspace with zero improvement after being draftified at the previous AFD. Fails WP:NEVENT with no WP:LASTING coverage of routine meteor sighting. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). aaronneallucas (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there has been some scientific analysis subsequent to the fall that has been reported in reliable sources. I've added a couple of sources to the article. If kept, the article probably should be moved to McDonough meteorite to harmonise with similar articles (cf. Winchcombe meteorite, Charlottetown meteorite. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I nominated the article for deletion last time because there were only sources from the day it happened, but now there are sources that have more depth as well. Now that there is some scientific information about the meteor, it is actually notable. I do agree the article should be renamed per above. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Air Flight 901

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT and WP:ROTM, this runway excursion event did not result in a fatality, hull loss or serious injury. No significant new coverage either. I see no reason to believe this will have a lasting impact. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 19:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 19:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep nose, skin propeller and gear doors were damaged not run of the mill Grffffff (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Nepal. aaronneallucas (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Seems pretty run of the mill for an airline incident, given little widespread coverage. aaronneallucas (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was given appropriate coverage Grffffff (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not a major incident or disaster. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An accident with injuries, it gives bit more of appropriate coverage, it start to meet WP:EVENT, Runway overruns Or ATR-72 Accidents and incidents are not run-of-the-mill (WP:ROTM), damaged aircraft. Jahndah (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
aircraft absolutely not written off as of yet, injuries do not warrant notability, not every ATR accident is notable, no lasting impact. Relton66 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But still, this was the first major accident in 2026, no fatalities but causes injuries, not a fatal accident but a hull lose, not written off but a damaged aircraft. ATR-72 hull loses are statistically rare. Jahndah (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

boom. You said it. The only reason some want to keep this is because it was the first "major" mishap of 2026. Just because it occurred on the flip of a calendar doesn't make it worthwhile for an encyclopedia. Relton66 (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it was a hull loss? I couldn't find that in any of the sources. This sort of accident often results in the aircraft being repaired and returned to service. nf utvol (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we heard you bud give us a different reason Grffffff (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

all of your points are not reasons for inclusion, "bud". That's what you're not getting. Relton66 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we are talking about a runway excursion with casualties and hull loss. There are similar accidents with even less damage caused which have articles no one disputes, Private User Edgeworth (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I messed up the bold message Private User Edgeworth (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as although there was no fatalities and runway excursions are common, the accident caused multiple injuries, received international coverage, was the first major accident this year, and was a hull loss. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this comment above me. Zaptain United (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:EVENTCRIT#4 as a run-of-the-mill incident with no factors of additional significance, no likelihood of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, no likelihood of WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable whatsoever. Seeing no sources declaring a write off, but even if it was, doesn't guarantee notability. No deaths, no lasting impact, little to no international coverage. Injuries are not a good argument when people die every week from small plane crashes, and no one argues notability for them. Just because it occurred on the flip of a calendar page, doesn't mean it's notable. That's the only argument I'm seeing here. Also FYI runway overruns occur relatively frequently, so... relton66 (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my nig Roabig73, not hull lose but minor accident. ~2026-68178 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, just a run of the mill runway excursion. Plane'n Boom1 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your articles are not really notable ether like flightline flight 101 Grffffff (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is also not run of the mill. Most runway excursions have no damage done. The last time a atr had a runway excursion like this was in 2024. Grffffff (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you just admitted this isn't notable. Okay. No reason to dive into someone else's article history. Comparing this to Flightline 101 is laughable. 101 was a plane crash in the ocean killing 10. This is a trivial mishap. Also, doesn't matter if it was an ATR, runway overruns are relatively common. Relton66 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Relton66 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely WP:TOOSOON, though these sorts of incidents rarely have the significant lasting coverage that would apply under WP:NEVENT. Would also accept Draftify as an alternative to deletion since it literally only happened two days ago.nf utvol (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a run of the mill runway overrun YokohamaVibez (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROTM and WP:NOTNEWS, just because it appears on news outlets and had some few injuries, that doesn’t necessarily make it notable. Protoeus (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst a weak keep, For me this is in a similar boat for Korean Air Flight 631 (which I believe also had a discussion to see if it was noteworthy). Both were runway overruns and no deaths occurred but there were injuries and the aircraft is damaged beyond repair: The area underneath the nose is destroyed as per videos on FL360aero and Planespotters.net lists 9N-AMF as written off on their site. A write off for me meets the criteria on WP:AIRCRASH. Whilst not covered extensively by the big news sites, there have been several news articles in India as well as on MSN.com. MKY661 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm thinking! Both are runway overruns and causes injuries, This Hull lose Has a aircraft damaged and injured people. ATR-72 runway overruns aren't extremely common but also happen with notable frequencys, they weren't standard but a known risk, Not all ATR-72 incidents/hull loses aren't notable. Right now, i'd would still say Keep. Jahndah (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH says “ By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not.”, so the fact that it meets WP:AIRCRASH standards, it doesn’t mean it’s notable per se, and its notability should be discussed separately. Protoeus (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz-Josef Große

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

Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL / WP:BIO1E / WP:VICTIM. Subject, a construction worker, is only notable for their death. Could possibly be repurposed as an event page, but that would require both re-naming it and restructuring/re-writing it as an event rather than a biography.4meter4 (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Germany. 4meter4 (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. aaronneallucas (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG and WP:RS exists. Should be renamed Muder of Heinz-Josef Große since their was a homicide conviction in this case.

EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Al-Qarn (1160)

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

Besides the fact that his article fails WP:GNG, it had been subject to a deletion discussion in the past, and there was consensus to delete it. Skitash (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous consensus to delete was based on a demonstration that the article content was unreliable and largely a rewording of information about a different battle. I presume an admin has declined a speedy delete request on the current argon th3 grounds that it is substantially differed from the deleted article? Was the deleted article refunded for further work? Mccapra (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see no reason to delete it, as it doesn't violate any of Wikipedia's policies. It's clear there are ideological and "Pan Arabist" reasons for deleting the article.
Afshar131 (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The old article was SYNTH at best and a hoax at worst. If this new article is closely based on the last one then it absolutely does violate Wikipedia policies. That’s why I am asking if there was a refund and if an admin who can see the deleted article can share a view on any similarities. Mccapra (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, the first article was different from this one and had different sources; the first article has now been deleted. Afshar131 (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is entirely valid. The battle is mentioned by all medievalists, including Idris Roger Hedy, Louis Massignon [1], Jacques Thiry [2], and Rachid Bourouiba [3], "Les Cahiers de Tunisie" [4]... ~2026-48403 (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The battle section was fully cited by an outdated sources. I really don't know how translated works of Ibn al-Athir and Ibn Khaldun are supposed to be a secondary reliable source. R3YBOl (🌲) 12:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I have now reviewed all the sources in the current article and unfortunately it reproduces all the problems of the earlier article. There was a battle in 1160 but most sources simply mention it in passing (including several not cited currently). Of most concern to me is the use of reliable independent sources in this article for largely decorative purposes, i.e. to give readers the impression that the battle is discussed in depth by many recognised sources when that isn’t the case. My analysis of the current sources is:

Does not mention the battle and does not support the statement made in the article text.
One passing mention of the battle. Does not support the statement made in the article text.
The entire “background” and “battle” sections of this article are a direct but unattributed translation from source 3.
One passing mention of the battle.
Says pretty much the same as source 3, just translating the original French source into German.
I’d have to pay £224 to access this online so didn’t but in any case it is a work of literary criticism dealing with the Sirat Bani Hilal and can’t be used as a source to establish the notability of the battle.
One passing mention.

No sources I can see claim that the battle lasted ten days, as is stated in the lead para. That appears to be an invention.

The battle is not discussed in depth in multiple RIS so should be deleted unless a suitable redirect target is agreed. This could be Banu Hillal or Abd al-Mu'min, though neither currently mentions this battle. Mccapra (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2006 Lusofonia Games

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If its been there for 20 years, why bother removing it? Talented-Intellectual-69 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 Lusofonia Games as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon 30th Anniversary

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

An article focused on an upcoming anniversary for the Pokemon series. The only coverage of this announcement is lacking, as so far no plans have been detailed, and thus the only coverage is just consisting of Pokemon-related topics that happen to be happening in 2026. The actual content on the 30th anniversary itself is non-existent and fails notability. The coverage for supporting an article about this just doesn't exist yet, and we can't tell if it will in the future or not without guessing per WP:CRYSTAL. Currently fails standalone notability as it stands. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Anime and manga, Companies, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current article was written on December 31st. I feel like this could have been discussed on the talk page for an attempt before resorting to AfD. It looks like AfC was done but then it was moved from the draftspace on the next edit. Move back to draftspace – The Grid (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC) draftify – The Grid (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. Draftifying would imply it is notable, and the issues are surmountable. However, it does not seem like it will be notable in the near future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying doesn't imply notability, it implies a notable article is hypothetically possible someday. As much as I don't believe these sorts of articles are necessary, there is precedent for them existing. Year of Luigi comes to mind, for example. So draftifying is technically plausible. Sergecross73 msg me 11:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically No. 3 in WP:DRAFTREASON. We have a full year ahead. – The Grid (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I draftified this when it was a single-source stub. I still think WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL apply here; there's not really anything that's been announced or in-depth coverage other than a teaser. Whilst they were free to do so, the article creator really could have benefited from submitting a redraft in AFC for oversight instead of moving it back on the same day and proceeding to tinker away at a potentially non-notable article. I will say that as this is about an event known to be occuring and evolving over the next twelve months, draftification could be appropriate here in circumstances where it might usually be not. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Almost notable (and very likely will be), but the sourcing isn't quite ready yet. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: While WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL apply, this is most likely be notable fairly soon. If the 30th has a similar timeline to the Pokémon 25th Anniversary, there should be plenty of announcements coming very soon. Cfgauss77 (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the January 2025 Richmond water crisis

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

This inordinately long article extensively documents an event which lasted less than a week, with no documented injuries or fatalities. Fails WP:NEVENT, specifically WP:LASTING (no major effects as a result), WP:GEOSCOPE (had no impact outside the city), WP:DURATION (nearly all sources are from January 2025), and WP:DIVERSE (nearly all sources are local media). Propose redirect to Richmond region water issues#January 2025 water crisis, where it already has a section. Astaire (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Engineering, Environment, United States of America, and Virginia. Astaire (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. WP:NOTNEWS is overused here, but this is quite exemplary of the kind of minutiae that should not be written this way in an encyclopedia, with little historical significance of precisely what happened when. Richmond region water issues#January 2025 water crisis is an excerpt but a merge of what's needed is an easy fix. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy cow, there's also Impacts and response to the January 2025 Richmond water crisis and Aftermath and investigations of the January 2025 Richmond water crisis with an insane amount of detail, and Richmond region water issues#May 2025 boil-water advisory has similar issues with every little action taken down to the minute. I strongly encourage JuxtaposedJacob to consider trimming substantial amounts of these and merging them with readable, encyclopedic summaries. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect But not sure where to as Richmond region water issues and Richmond region water system should both probably be cut down and merged together. Idontwantaaccount (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic Lateral

AfDs for this article:

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

no WP:LASTING coverage since their matchup in 2023. ~2025-44120-31 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Massachusetts, and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This play received coverage separate from routine postgame reports, and SIGCOV in the article, related to the play, was WP:SUSTAINED for several months afterward. The fact that coverage isn’t lasting two years later isn’t relevant as notability is not temporary. Frank Anchor 19:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrankAnchor EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What has changed since previous nomination where notability is already established? --SaTnamZIN (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was closed as keep when it should’ve been closed as no consensus, with the DRV also finding no consensus even though the closer acknowledged no consensus was an acceptable outcome. Therefore it’s an extremely borderline case and saying consensus was found to be kept is very borderline. ~2026-34519 (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources in the article that aren't from the immediate week the play happened only 3 actually mention the play. 2 are passing mentions with 1 in depth (interview with Meyers). This is not really much more than any other newsworthy game, especially since all mentions are during the same season. Not enough for sustained coverage. Idontwantaaccount (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The play was considered one of the worst plays in NFL history and was a key reason why the New England Patriots missed the playoffs that season. It also garnered national media attention and is still talked about. per User:CMC 2401 (talk)

Third oath of office ceremony of Narendra Modi

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

Not clear why the oath ceremony deserves a standalone article. Content is poor and does not say much about the ceremony itself. JohnMizuki (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 14:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narendra Modi. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Third Modi ministry. BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Third Modi ministry. Can't find any lasting coverage of the event to satisfy WP:NEVENT.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page itself is pretty empty right now, but looking around for sources, I think there might be enough content to add that could justify a standalone page. For example, this New York Times article analyses the inauguration as an indicator of Modi shifting towards coalition-building and this Diplomat article analyses the inauguration as an indicator of Modi's diplomacy (explicitly saying that the guest list was "more than just a formality"). NHCLS (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Third Modi ministry. Those seem like decent sources to include in that article, but I don't think a standalone page is necessary. Reywas92^Talk 01:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Daniel Wretström

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

Hard to find reliable sources, seems to be known in certain circles but the relevance outside those circles ? TomT0m (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a lot of coverage in books about the far-right even decades after his murder. See [5] that plus the news coverage is a keep for me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of contemporary coverage, it was covered in academic works and was used by the far right as justification for the Salem March, which was described as While the annual Daniel Wretström demonstration has been the biggest public neo-Nazi gathering in Sweden for some time[6]. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage, per above. And per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Friendship Cup

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

Fails WP:GNG, as it is a non-notable tournament, also probably fails WP:SIGCOV. rfqii^talk! 08:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per this source [7]. Received the expected coverage for the period in which the tournament took place. Svartner (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incredibly difficult one given the current sourcing. It's clear from the RSSSF article and the source that's been found that there are sources available, albeit with missing information. This picture suggests other sources are available, but there's obviously nothing easily available on the internet. The information appears reliable enough though... SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I feel this is viable as a topic, I expect there will be better sources in Farsi and Russian. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources/arguments above which (AGF) show notability. Giant Snowman 11:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bay of Velez

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TITLE. All cited sources mention the event only in passing and provide no WP:SIGCOV. I propose deletion or merging the content into Salah Rais. Fróis (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the content, the third source contains sigcov, but it is a book published in 1966. Did you access it? Kelob2678 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very minor, stub-like article. Delete or merge to consolidate target article. Wareno (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. According to this source, this was a larger offensive or raid of which the chance victorious encounter with a Portuguese fleet was one part. Note that the French WP has several other Peñón de Vélez expeditions we lack and we have two more that the French lack. Srnec (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this source, which provides some details regarding this event by Joseph Morgan [8]. Though I'm not sure if we can consider this a reliable source. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WordMasters Challenge

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordMasters. This version of the article fails for the same reasons. It is sourced, but it seems to be sourced with the same type of articles I proposed last time, decided to be routine coverage. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and United States of America. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Authenticity Controversy section helpfully sets out all the reasons why one might not want to keep this article. Athel cb (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This should be kept, as it is sourced.
StarFox0Lover (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the sources are primary sources and the other does not even mention the challenge. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agreeing with nom s points most seems either passing mentions or primary with current sourcings, additional searches show much the same.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Hammonton mid-air collision

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

Run-of-the-mill incident, fails WP:EVENTCRIT#4, fails WP:GNG, no likelihood of continuing coverage beyond the initial news cycle, no likelihood of lasting effects. Not encyclopedic, fails the WP:10YEARTEST. Zaptain United (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per run of the mill incident involving small aircraft and minor event. Borgenland (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor private tragedy, lack of general importance for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep even just the 2 people involved, and fails for WP:GNG. Mid air collision are usually extremely rare, only 3 mid air collision have happened in this year Jahndah (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mid-air collision is not at all a run-of-the-mill incident; almost every mid air collision in history is notable by its very nature and excessive rarity. WP:EVENTCRIT #4 does not apply here as a mid-air collision is not a regular accident. Also does not fail WP:GNG and is very much unlikely to fail the WP:10YEARTEST. I find it very difficult to believe this incident is so far less notable than the other articles in Category:Mid-air collisions involving helicopters as to not deserve an article. Electricmemory (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on mid-air collisions involving helicopters have previously been deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 Camp Ripley mid-air collision; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Eura mid-air collision; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 Fort Benning Mid-Air Helicopter Collision. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per this comment in September 2022: "Actually the ref I noted above tabulated 43 mid-air collisions in the US over a five year period, which is an average of 8.6 per year. So yes, a fairly common event." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that I nominated the Camp Ripley article. I've since focused on available coverage, and this accident has quite a bit. Maybe it will die down soon, but it would feel wrong to support deleting an article that has received coverage (a significant amount in the case of ABC, among others). 11WB (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is substantial initial coverage for this accident:

ABC, BBC News, Sky News, KRCG, Hindustan Times. There are many, many more in Google search results. This has been covered all over the world and is clearly notable. The article just needs expanding. Keep. 11WB (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB Consider moving "Keep" to the front of your reply so it is not missed by whoever closes this. Electricmemory (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Toolforge does not recognise the !vote unless I do it this way on this AfD. 11WB (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. All sources simply narrate the event without providing anything beyond that. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See reply above from 11WB. Several such sources exist, they just need to be added. Electricmemory (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT#4 in particular: almost all accidents receive news coverage and this one is no different, but the accident and the coverage are both relatively routine. There seems to be minimal likelihood of WP:INDEPTH or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, nor WP:LASTING effects. As an ATD we could consider a redirect to Hammonton Municipal Airport#Accidents and incidents, though I'm not convinced that the mention there is WP:DUE, hence my delete !vote. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE does not apply to this. A mid-air collision is not "routine" or common by any metric. Electricmemory (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1961 Cincinnati Zantop DC-4 crash

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

Run-of-the-mill incident, fails WP:EVENTCRIT#4, fails WP:GNG. There is no sustain coverage of this accident. Zaptain United (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see the point of redirecting this. There are no fatalities, no lasting changes, or anything of significance like coverage. Zaptain United (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, United States of America, and Ohio. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 23:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport § Accidents and incidents: My WP:BEFORE search is a catastrophe with little to no sources found. No WP:LASTING but has WP:INDEPTH sources dating from at the time of the crash, detailing on information such as the crew, but these citations lack enough sourcing information for verification. My WP:ATD-R decision is purely to merge usable content and preserve the page's history. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. All sources simply narrate the event without providing anything beyond that. All sources beyond 1961 only contain passing mentions of the accident and fail to provide any significant or in-depth coverage (e.g. [9] [10]). WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KLA spring offensives (1998)

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

While taking a better research about this so called "uprising" i didn't found any reliable source or coverage mentioning it. While Judah does mention how uprising started after Adem Jashari was killed, it is actually talking about war and not just one event. Also sources used for territories that KLA captured appear to be super unreliable since they're KLA reports and claims which many times contradict what other sources and reports say. OR and probably even WP:HOAX article Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kosovo.SenseCentar (the sources you’re referring to) is a Croatian source that collects reports from during the Kosovo War. Also i can‘t understand which sources in the article i used incorrectly. AverageSkiptar (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo center while is croatian source isn't reliable at all, it contains only KLA reports which many times contradicts what other sources say, claiming how Yugoslav counteroffensive didn't do anything to KLA, how KLA retained their positions in August, claiming to have Kijevo, claiming that VJ suffered absurd amounts of casualties during offensive (despite no sources report that VJ suffered that many casualties), claiming September offensive as KLA victory, claiming KLA held 50% of Kosovo etc. I also don't doubt that many claims didn't happen and are said as propaganda to motivate albanians to join the KLA. Fails every aspect of Reliable Source Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the counter-offensive in 1998 only weakened the KLA, not "almost destroy" it. About Kijevo, there are sources stating that the Yugoslav forces regained control over Kijevo in July 3rd 1998, which might mean that the KLA had Kijevo for a short period of time. Lastly, there are some western and serbian reports in Kosovo.SenseCentar but there are not many, AverageSkiptar (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The KLA Isn't only talking about not being weakened and it still largely rely on reports and KLA statements Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo.SenseCentar also relies on Paris AFP, Zagreb HINA, Tanjug and other reports during the war which are non-Kosovar sources. AverageSkiptar (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

non-kosovar doesn't make it reliable Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it does, no need to deny it AverageSkiptar (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. One of the many articles that were created in the previous period by a user who does not respect policies and vandalizes Yugoslav conflict articles. Polsko-Gruzinski (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: per nom, though not a WP:HOAX this article lacks secondary reliable sources. However the article does seems to have significant coverage in context of wider war which is misframed rather than being completely false. If not deletion it would be best to have the article drafted, substantially rewritten, eliminating all statements that are not supported by appropriate verification Marshal of Italy talk 20:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Nominating user has refused to show evidence that the articles have WP:OR and obviously is a bad faith AfD. Calls foreign sources unreliable, which is a sign of WP:JUST.

AverageSkiptar (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is well sources and I think passes WP:NOTABILITY Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is disagreement over the sources that are used in the article, particularly those that are WP:PRIMARY. A reminder to follow WP:FOC and not make personal remarks about other editors. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete because I'm not sure about the value of a page that just regurgitates for the most part already existing articles. It would be one thing if it was a properly written narrative based on reliable sources that discuss events occurring during this phase, but it's just selective cherry-picking, copy-paste summaries and OR about what to include and what dates qualify as part of the offensive. About some of the sources: Radio Kosova e Lirë is POV as it treats the KLA extremely positively and even fawns over them. kosovosensecentar is a collection of press releases BUT the cited page 22 is a communiqué from the KLA ("UCK Communique Reports Successes in 'Extensive Fighting") in May 1998 and therefore not independent nor reliable. --Griboski (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Korçë

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG, as the subject has not been covered significantly by multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Additionally, the article incorporates so few sources that there is not an encyclopedic level of notability apart from brief references to events surrounding the subject. Marshal of Italy talk 15:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Marshal of Italy talk 15:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anything relevant is already covered in the main article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Morava–Ivan. The battle is probably notable, but as of now it is better covered as a part of the Battle of Morava–Ivan, which started two days earlier than the battle for the city and ended one day later and which had the fall of the city as its central event. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve - I think if more sources can be found then it can stay, I can search for some extra sources. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I am sure that sources exist, I just don't know how to search for them. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find some more, one of the problems is the town has so many different name variations, but I managed to find a couple more luckily. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was covered in a Greek military journal published in 1973, there is an article about it in the Greek version of Life. The article also contains a book and this Greek document as references, so it is clearly notable but should be expanded. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE Women's Events 2024-2025

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Only cites primary sources. The subject is sufficiently covered in the parent article at Women's Candidates Tournament 2026#FIDE Women's Events 2024–25. I had WP:blanked and redirected it, but was reverted by the creator, who said Women's events is not a part of the candidates tournment but a mere qualification, which is not a valid reason for it to have its own article. 9ninety (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this different from the FIDE Circuit? Kelob2678 (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The FIDE Circuit is quite different; it doesn't only include FIDE's own events, and has generated a lot of discussion. More importantly, it has significant coverage in independent sources, indicating notability. It also can't be as easily fully covered by its parent article. Anyway, WP:Other stuff exists is an argument to avoid. 9ninety (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. I found this source, but it is not enough. Redirect. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Toluca Cessna Citation III crash

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

I performed a WP:BEFORE and found only one usable source from Mexico News Daily, which is not attributed. There was another source from The Sun, which is not usable due to being deprecated. Failing a redirect to a relevant page, I think a delete is actionable here, with the possibility of recreation later should the accident receive sustained coverage. 11WB (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Mexico. 11WB (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The crash received a lot of international coverage from the fact that 3 minors were killed in the crash. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is too early to decide if it is notable. I have found these sources that talked about the crash two to three days after the crash.

https://www.globalair.com/articles/private-citation-iii-crashes-into-automotive-warehouse-in-mexico?id=11679

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2025-12-17/mexico-citation-iii-crash-under-federal-investigation

https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/plane-crash-near-toluca-leaves-ten-dead-and-community-shaken-520398#google_vignette Zaptain United (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Cessna crash is notable, 10 killed is serious to the FAA, there's more news about this crash.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/crashed-mexican-citation-iii-entered-excessive-left-bank-during-final-approach-to-toluca/165707.article

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2025-12-17/mexico-citation-iii-crash-under-federal-investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahndah (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the "keep" "wins", in 10 years the WP:LASTING consequences will be none. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as although jet crashes happen often, the number of fatalities is pretty big with children being among the victims. It also crashed on a football field, causing more damage. The accident sustained international coverage for days, with many articles by reliable sources being created. The article is decent but could be expanded. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. All sources simply narrate the event without providing anything beyond that. I also can't find any coverage on the accident beyond the initial "breaking news" reports. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine general aviation crash, per WP:EVENTCRIT#4 which tells us that accidents, however tragic and widely reported at the time, are rarely notable. No likelihood of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, nor of WP:LASTING effects (though usual caveats apply should any factors of enduring significance come to light at a later date). Rosbif73 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aviationwikiflight and Rosbif73. Carguychris (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is continued coverage of the crash in Spanish-language sources, almost two weeks later: [11] [12] [13] Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight, Rosbif73, and Carguychris: These sources show continued coverage after the initial event. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General WP:AV consensus with general aviation accidents is that news articles within 2-4 weeks don't count as WP:CONTINUED coverage unless there are unusual circumstances (e.g., a mid-air collision, independently Wikinotable people, or multiple ground fatalities), and everything in the articles you provided is WP:ROUTINE. My Spanish is rusty, but all those articles appear to say is "Here's some facts about the deceased, who aren't particularly notable for any reason other than the circumstances of their unfortunate demise. Authorities continue to investigate." Cookie-cutter slow-news-day space filler. Carguychris (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mojmilo Ridge

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

Most sources doesn't appear to be reliable and fails GNG Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Polsko-Gruzinski (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can you explain which sources aren’t reliable? And did you do a WP:BEFORE search for other sources? Lijil (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In contrast to other articles regarding such small battles, this one is reliably sourced, and the victory is commemorated in modern Bosnian society. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable Ulltrassai (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad

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

Fails GNG, also relies heavily on primary sources. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Asia. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a paper about it. There are also reports from the national press about the performance of its teams there, which also contain background information on the competition[14][15][16]. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources above, tag with {{sources exist}} when closing if kept and not improved, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I am not sure the sources are strong enough to warrant a keep. Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is still no consensus on whether there are enough sources. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Australian Mathematics Trust has published a series of five books about this competition; here are worldcat links to three: [17] [18] [19]. In addition, Hans Lausch has published at least two journal articles about the competition [20] [21] (one linked above). These are not entirely independent of each other (Lausch is an editor of the first two of these books) and unfortunately I cannot find the publications themselves, only the record of their existence, but I think together with the other references already linked above they provide significant coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Express Airlines Flight 007

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

This article is redundant. I don't think this "sideshow-incident" has enough information or sources to justify its existence. Main information is in United Airlines Flight 175 anyway. As an alternate, we can merge information, I just don't see what information we should merge as most of it is redundant anyway. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, New York, and Wisconsin. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This is wild. It feels like it’s sourced to one person who was in the flight deck. tedder (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly unsourced. BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BlookyNapsta has been globally blocked as compromised account. TarnishedPath^talk 11:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly sourced badly written non notable --10mmsocket (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Airlines Flight 175#Near misses, as is the case for Delta Air Lines Flight 2315Delta Air Lines Flight 2315 which also had a near miss with UA175. Even if this were better written and had better sources, it would not be notable in its own right. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, even if consensus were to emerge that this incident is notable in its own right, independent of UA175, I would still !vote to redirect (or merge if there are any missing details that are both WP:DUE and reliably sourced), per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to United Airlines Flight 175#Near misses as an alternative to deletion – The incident is borderline notable as sources do indeed exist, with (Spencer 2008), published by the Free Press, providing three pages of coverage and a book review that focused on this incident by (Daykin 2008) for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other sources that provide smaller coverage of the incident. However, I feel that under WP:PAGEDECIDE, this topic would better covered at United Airlines Flight 175#Near misses ("Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page..."). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed to United Airlines Flight 175#Near misses. Not notable on it's own merits. LightlySeared (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that it is a notable incident and it dose deserve a page. A flight diving over 3000 feet in under 30 seconds is notable. More sources are needed as it is a new page, and they will be. I feel everyone is jumping to a drastic decision while the article is still incomplete. Just a teenage railfan (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just a teenage railfan: If you weren't done with the article, then I suggest that you should've started the article as a draft. Writing an incomplete article doesn't meet the criteria of being included in the article space. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would have been a good idea. I published it before it was ready and I am since regretting that decision Just a teenage railfan (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You published it, people attempted to move it to draft, and you moved it back. So it's hard to say "jumping on" an incomplete article because you published it twice. tedder (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, because i thought drafting it would have left it in a unfinished state. If it was punished I thought others could work on it as well Just a teenage railfan (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Others would have been equally free to work on it while it was in draft. If, as looks likely, this AfD decides to redirect to the UA175 article, nothing would prevent you from working on a new draft if you really think you can prove that the incident is notable and deserves its own article. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've moved it to draft. Just a teenage railfan (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or not, can't move it while it's in AFD Just a teenage railfan (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, see this page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others proposed to United Airlines Flight 175#Near misses. Interesting case, but nowhere close to meeting notability. This is the best sourcing I found, and even that is in the context of UAL175. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is barely notable in my view. There are enough sources to make it notable, but the current article is very bad and trash. It was not even remotely ready. I am not against a Redirect, however. I think this article can be improved though. Zaptain United (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's only 3 sources, one of which is ASN, so I don't agree that there are currently enough sources to "make it notable". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the sources @Aviationwikiflight provided. Zaptain United (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think those sources show enough notability to be its article. I disagree with a merge or delete for this reason. Zaptain United (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Still notable for me, two big turns with a 3,000-feet-dive under a minute is not really normal, but the source didn't establish much new for me.Ohok12 (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Still notable, but it may need more sources to meet GNG. Hlfxcuc (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Airlines Flight 175#Near misses per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Even if the sources identified by Aviationwikiflight are enough for the article to pass WP:GNG, this topic is better covered as part of a larger article and does not merit a standalone page.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify this article is about two weeks old, it's not really ready for mainspace source-wise, but there are sources that have been identified above which means that it might pass GNG if properly sourced. We should add a mention to the redirect target regardless. SportingFlyer T·C 06:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or, less preferred, Draftify. Redirect would preserve the history and allow for future incubation, but it is well covered in the UA175 article. This event is only notable because of its interaction with UA175, and it makes sense to keep the information consolidated in the primary article. I see this as similar to midair collision articles...you don't have separate articles for each flight, you have a single article for the incident (which, in this case, is the hijacking of flight UA175).

SPLASH (conference)

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

Declined prod. Based entirely on primary sources. Basically a list of conference dates. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find sources indicating how many people attend or other details that might count towards notability. I will also comment that the reason quoted for deprodding (WP:NJOURNALS#2) makes no sense to me. Not only is that an essay, not policy, this is not a journal.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a prank? WP:NJOURNALS literally says that it applies to "conference proceedings" in the first sentence. This is sloppy work by someone who didn't bother reading what was cited. Come back when you've actually read WP: NJOURNALS and WP: ONLYESSAY. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BlookyNapsta has been globally blocked as compromised account. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Influential papers from this conference have been cited hundreds of times [22]. This conference meets the "frequently cited" standard that WP: NJOURNALS posits, so the article should stay. A proper WP: BEFORE should also include searches for OOPSLA, which is a part of SPLASH; neither of the two !votes above indicate that they have done this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think NJOURNALS should apply per hyperAccelerated (they could have been a bit more gentle). its been ongoing for about 40 years, and i've recalled reading influential papers from SPLASH in general, and there are influential papers from it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the comments above, I can't find any reliable and secondary sources discussing this conference or the OOPSLA conference. I am a bit confused by the statement above saying "frequently cited" works establish notability for the conference itself, that doesn't change the fact that there are no secondary sources. Everything I have seen is published by the conference or it's parent organization ACM, and everything on both the OOPSLA and SPLASH pages are primary. Ajheindel (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You evidently did not look very hard. I found multiple sources that discuss OOPSLA. These sources are secondary (not affiliated with OOPSLA), reliable (from academics), and discuss the subject in-depth (more than a trivial mention):

Frachtenberg, Eitan (2022). "Research artifacts and citations in computer systems papers" [23]:

A few of these conferences, such as MobiCom and SLE, specifically encouraged artifacts in their call-for-papers or websites. Four conferences—SC, OOPSLA, PLDI, and SLE—archived their artifacts in the ACM’s digital library. In addition to general encouragement and archival, six conferences specifically offered to evaluate artifacts by a technical committee: OOPSLA, PACT, PLDI, PPoPP, SC, and SLE. ... Looking at the differences across conferences, Fig. 1 shows the percentage of papers with artifacts per conference, ranging from 0% for ISCA, IGSC, and HCW to OOPSLA’s 78.79% (mean: 27.22%, SD: 19.32%). Unsurprisingly, nearly all of the conferences where artifacts were evaluated are prominent in their relatively high artifact rates. ... Observe, however, that some of the conferences that encourage or require artifacts are not as competitive as the others. For example, OOPSLA, with the highest artifact rate, had an acceptance rate of 0.3, and SLE, with the fourth-highest artifact rate, had an acceptance rate of 0.42. The implication here is that it may not suffice for a conference to actively encourage artifacts for it to be competitive, but a conference that already is competitive may also attract more artifacts.

Mercorio, Fabio, Mario Mezzanzanica, and Dario Malchiodi (2022). "Which Conference Is That? A Case Study in Computer Science" [24]
In the following, we provide a few examples of the contents of the different lists, also highlighting some common issues arising in the linking process.
Example 1: OOPSLA. The conference title in the DBLP authority file is "ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications" and its DBLP key is oopsla. We notice, however, that the same DBLP key is associated with 11 other satellites events. Moreover, the same conference has a slightly different name in other authority files. For instance, in GII-GRIN-SCIE, OOPSLA appears as "ACM Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications."
The DBLP conference edition list contains 96 items with key oopsla. Out of them, only 31 correspond to the main conference, the others being satellites events, whose number increased especially in the last few years. Titles associated with different OOPSLA editions can be rather different within the list. For instance:
- The 1994 edition appears in the list as OOPSLA'94, Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, Portland, Oregon, USA, October 23-27, 1994. Most notably, the acronym, followed by an abbreviation of the year, appears at the beginning, sponsors are not specified, the ordinal number of the conference edition is written in letters, the conference location appears before the date.
- The 2009 edition appears in the list as Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2009, October 25-29, 2009, Orlando, Florida, USA. In this case the ordinal number of the edition is provided using digits followed by suffix "th", the acronym is in the middle, the sponsor is provided, the conference location appears after the date.
- The 2015 edition appears in the list as Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2015, part of SPLASH 2015, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, October 25-30, 2015. In this case, the edition is not given through an ordinal number but is specified by its year, sponsors are provided, the acronym is in the middle, and the name of a larger event that OOPSLA is part of is also given.
At worst, we could merge to OOPSLA, as we might not need separate articles about OOPSLA and SPLASH. However, wholesale deletion seems completely inappropriate. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – in addition to what is written above, a list of places where the conference has been held with for each instance a link to its website is not really encyclopedic and the rest of the content is equally trivial. WP:NOTAWEBHOST. --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP: SIGCOV of OOPSLA and the problems that you've pointed out can be fixed by normal editing. Absolute nonsense rationale. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SIGPLAN as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer a redirect to OOPSLA if possible, but this isn't a terrible choice either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vahajarvi school stabbing

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see WP:LASTING impact, nor have I been able to find secondary sources (WP:PRIMARYNEWS). lp0 on fire () 11:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Finland. lp0 on fire () 11:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or just Redirect) to List of school attacks in Finland where this attack is already summarized. WP:NOTNEWS. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is. Many cases like these even with less affected have gotten their own page - Galdora (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because all these other crimes have got their own permanent page AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC) Strike sockpuppet. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind WP:OSE. Many of those other articles probably do meet WP:NEVENT, and if not then they should be deleted as well. lp0 on fire () 07:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school attacks in Finland per WP:NOTNEWS. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the incident has had notable news follow-ups months after the initial act, it's not just a flash in the pan. Definitely needs some reworking though. CornyDude22 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the alleged perpetrator is a 16-year-old, so we also have severe BLP issues here. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CornyDude22: could you provide examples of this news coverage? Articles covering ongoing court cases and the like don't indicate lasting significance. lp0 on fire () 21:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kelob. Even though there is coverage, it is rather minor and nothing that can't be summarized within the context of that article. Thus, I argue that it fails WP:OWNPAGE, notwithstanding the BLP nature of the topic and very limited enduring coverage. WP:NEVENT also requires some analysis of the event itself, not just descriptions. Perhaps there are more articles in Finnish (or even Swedish), in fact this is very likely, but I don't think that those would provide any analysis either due to the minor nature of the event. Deletion is not warranted because of WP:ATD User:Easternsahara 03:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if kept, it should certainly be renamed to 'Vähäjärvi school stabbing', as the anglicized version without Ä does not occur in any of the sources referenced in the article. This kind of anglicization is of no benefit when it's not even used by reliable sources, and as a case in point, when typing this comment I was distracted by the title and mistyped it as 'Vahajärvi' (wax river) instead of 'Vähäjärvi' (little river). I will wait until the completion of the AfD before moving though. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "school" in the title should also be capitalized, as "Vähäjärvi" is the name of the school, not the actual geographical location of where this happened. See also: Sigma School shooting. CornyDude22 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Perl Conference

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article is unreferenced. From a Google search, I found no usable secondary sources about it. (Note: I found a number of Perl-related articles with these same notability issues. Because their subjects are still distinct and they were created by different editors, I chose not to WP:BUNDLE.) WikiFouf (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, The Python Conference page is also unreferenced? Instead of erasing the historical memory of tens of thousands of people who attended those events (I myself attended a couple), what needs to be done is to improve the article so that it has the same quality as the Python Conference page and those for other programming languages. The fact that there are no references to it on Google doesn't mean that there weren't numerous Perl fan pages recounting their experiences from those days. In fact, it's still being held. The last one was this year, in June. There are 125 articles that link to this page. And versions in three languages (Spanish, French, and Dutch). JoaquinFerrero (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a nice reference on The Perl Foundation's official website, which recounts the first 25 years. It explains how the conferences organized by the O'Reilly company (The O'Reilly Pearl Conference in 1997) would evolve into the OSCON conference, and later into the YAPC.

https://news.perlfoundation.org/post/the_first_twenty-five_years JoaquinFerrero (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blog post, which does not qualify for Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog post from The Perl Foundation, a subject-matter expert. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the YAPC website (emphasis mine): "The Yet Another Perl Conferences (YAPCs) are grassroots symposia on the Perl programming language promoted by The Perl Foundation, a non-profit corporation dedicated to the advancement of the Perl programming language through open discussion, collaboration, design, and code. We also support other collaborative events such as Perl workshops and hackathons." [25]

We don't know the editorial standards of TPF, but even if we did, this doesn't appear to be an independent source. A foundation supporting the conference would be more than willing to publish a piece singing praises about said conference. It doesn't meet the standard for WP: GNG on multiple counts. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this historical memory appears in secondary sources, Wikipedia will absolutely erase it, regardless if the article is kept. Wikipedia is no place for publication of what was not published before. Regarding fan pages, these usually are not good sources, either. ~2025-41636-00 (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers. We owe you nothing. The PyCon page also has more than a dozen references; claiming that it's "unreferenced" is pure fiction. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: the solution is to add References to this page, not delete it. Easy? JoaquinFerrero (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently not, considering you've commented here three times without presenting a single source that establishes the subject's notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did a WP: BEFORE, found a couple small blurbs in books, but nothing that would be enough to write an article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no opposition to a merge. No preference on merge target. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Perl programming language. In cases like this where the subject by itself is not all that notable, but the material when merged might still be of some lesser interest, that is the best WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split between deleting and merging. Need to consider more if there is any content that could be put in the parent Perl article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a full (photo) book about the Perl communities. Photos were taken at OSCON conferences. The book was edited in 2008.

It may qualify as a secondary source, as the author can be considered « indépendant » from the Perl community itself.

The photos can be seen on Flickr too. Smonff (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found several more sources in books and old computing journals on archive.org and added these with some more facts. I also reorganized the article a bit. I think there are enough sources to justify keeping this article. It is referenced in multiple independent sources from the early 2000s as the second-most important Perl conference and as the grassroots, low cost conference. This would explain why it's not visible in the ACM Digital Library - it wasn't academic and it was for people without lots of money. That kind of event is often less visible in the historical record, not because they're less important but because there is less money in PR and documentation. The frequently mentions (each at least a paragraph specifically about the conference series, some have more) are evidence that the conferences were significant. In addition to the many paragraphs saying this is an important conference if you'r interested in Perl, there is a 3/4 page review of the 2001 Amsterdam conference in the Dutch Linux Magazine. There was probably more coverage at the time that is difficult to find digitally today. Lijil (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: more than enough coverage in Gscholar to show it exists [26], [27]. Article needs a rewrite, as it's more of a list of events, but has been going on for over 20 yrs now with coverage in books and various articles. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a passage from the second source? The first is a very short paragraph -- not enough to write an article with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is paywalled but appears to about this conference series, which would be Yet Another Source supporting notability! If you additionally look at the several sources I added to the article already I think you’ll agree there is more than enough for WP:GNG. Lijil (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had already included source 1 in my revisions of the article. Lijil (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not answering my question. Can you give me a passage from the second source? HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's available from Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. You should meet the relevant prerequisites for access and be able to search the title of the article from TWL's EBSCOHost.
Since then, Perl Mongers [a user group brian d foy summarizes the history of] organized, as loosely as possible, a community. The Pittsburgh Perl Mongers put on the first Yet Another Perl Conference, from which Kevin Lenzo started Yet Another Society, which turned into The Perl Foundation. Now the Perl user groups are the worker bees of YAPC (and without any work for me!).
Aaron Liu (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a trivial mention to me, unless there's additional context that you've omitted. In the absence of any additional information, I'm going to say that neither of these sources cover the subject at sufficient depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lijil has added several more sources to reference claims in the article. Just those referenced claims alone seem enough to justify a standalone article, so I say ~~Keep~~. The Locations section should probably be removed and converted to Wikidata entries like d:Q483279#P706. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it some more, all of the contents could be comfortably merged as a subsection of Perl#Community. I did not notice that a decent chunk of the History section is also just locations, and the Reception section would still make sense as a part of a subsection. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Perú 1952

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and most of the details in the article are from indiscernible source. The references are 1) Pageantopolis, determined not reliable at RSN, and 2) a Peruvian newspaper with a list of names of the winners of this contest for some year span, but none of the other details in the article.

I have bundled the following articles because they have exactly the same two sources and the same problems with GNG.

☆ Bri (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ALL.

per WP:NLIST:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

No one can in good faith deny the obvious informational merit (list of placements etc) of the article or its navigation purpose (chronology being the most obvious, interwiki another).

& per WP: SPLITLIST

Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page.

At least if size is no issue, a redirect and merge into Miss Peru should be performed. (and the nominator knows this perfectly, as one will see below).

But I will note that coverage exists.... for example, for the 2 individual years I checked rapidly and to which I added a couple of refs.... for 1952 (the first year...!) -one can also add https://larepublica.pe/espectaculos/famosos/2023/01/11/ada-gabriela-bueno-bottger-quien-fue-la-primera-miss-peru-de-la-historia-miss-universo-evat .... and for 1957... ... well, the ceremony for year 1957 is PARTICULARLY notable for having allowed for the time in history a Latin American woman to win the Miss Universe contest that year....(https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/207589/).

I will also note that the nominator, despite a 2020 Afd (same nominator....) closed as Keep, has boldly redirected the year 1953 to Miss Peru..... on Dec. 5 this year. Why ask for community input if it’s not to respect the outcome decided? -~2025-42255-38 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. There are good reasons to request deletion, one of which being assessing community value of these articles as created. So far I've gotten either little pushback on the redirects, or mixed messages on a previous bundled deletion, potentially on technical grounds concerning the bundling procedure. The other deletion debate you linked was 3 in favor of delete (including myself as nominator), 2 expressed as Keep, and 1 Procedural Keep which is the technical one that did not discuss the merits of the articles. And guess what: one of the 'keep' votes was actually supporting the Procedural Keep. So strictly speaking, there was only one "clean" Keep vote. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No further comments at all since the previous relist. The current consensus isn't clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is pretty clear that the pageant was a major event in Peru in 1952. Per Cox Hall (2024) the magazine Caretas issued a special edition for the winner. Caretas interviewed her again in 2006. Here we find the mention "... 1952 , ante la expectativa de casi toda la ciudad , se eligió a la primera Miss Perú . El título recayó en una chica apurimeña : Ada Gabriela Bueno . La final del certamen se definió en el antes almidonado Club Lawn Tennis de la ..." Semanario Peruano wrote "La eleccion de Ana Gabriela Bueno , como Señorita Perú . Un con- curso como hay tantos , para designar Miss Universo , y la participante pe ruana , superó todas las expectativas de los organizadores : se convirtió , prácticamente , en un problema na- cional , donde intervinieron periodis- tas , artistas , políticos , etc. Posible- mente en el fondo del asunto , la lu- cha entre las postulantes más podero- sas , la vió nuestro pueblo , como una oportunidad para afirmar lo autén- ' tico . lo nuestro , y por eso Ada Ga- briela Bueno , no obstante la belleza indudable de su contrincante ..." --Soman (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game

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

This article has very little information about the game itself, but plenty of information about Mr. Beast and the halftime show, which are not WP:NOTABLE in regards to the game. Assadzadeh (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entire article appears to be an advertisement, the fact it was played in Brazil isn't a good enough reason to keep. Dafootballguy (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with @Assadzadeh. Really nothing notable about what happened in the game, along with the fact that we don't make individual articles just because it was an international game. If anything, all of this Mr. Beast stuff really should just be stripped down and put into a couple sentences in Mr. Beast's own Wikipedia article. Red0ctober22 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill regular season game which happened to be played in a foreign land (as is the case for several games each year). The few sentences of content regarding MrBeast can be placed in his article if not already included. Frank Anchor 18:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose a redirect. “2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game” is a highly unlikely search term that can also refer to the two teams’ December 14 game in Kansas City. Frank Anchor 03:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose a redirect to the Chargers-Chiefs rivalry page. This title is a game, not the rivalry as a whole. Redirecting could create an unnecessary and highly wasteful precedent. Frank Anchor 02:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume that if such a redirect were made, it would be a section redirect to Chargers–Chiefs rivalry#2020s, which already describes this specific game (and no other game matching this title), making it entirely in conformance with redirect policy. BD2412 T 04:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in my opinion, the fact that it was an international game, the second ever to be played in Brazil, and the first ever to be completely free to watch. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's substantial media coverage not just of the game itself (who won/lost), but also of its import as an expansion of the NFL to Brazil. A cursory search turns up examples including the Los Angeles Times, The Athletic, ESPN, the AP, NBA, and The Kansas City Star. As Assadzadeh and Red0ctober22 rightly point out, what happened in the game isn't particularly noteworthy, and is little discussed in the article. But while I agree that more of the action could be added, focusing on the action misses the point: The notability of this game isn't what happened during the four quarters of play, but in how the NFL chose to arrange and promote the match-up as part of an attempt to expand its global reach. Indeed, this wasn't any old mid-season game, or even a team's season opener, but the opening game of the entire NFL season; the NFL was focusing on more than just a face-off between two high-profile teams. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, the NFL already played a game in Brazil last year, and two, this was the second game of the entire season; the Eagles/Cowboys game the night before was the actual season opener. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, Red0ctober22. But the point stands, as a closer look shows that the last two decades of tradition holds that the very first game of the season, the NFL Kickoff, is hosted by the reigning Super Bowl champion. The game in Brazil was thus the second game overall, but the first that could be played while still following the traditional structure. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill regular season game that can be simply merged into the NFL International Games article. 2nd game ever in Brazil and first being free to watch are not worthy of it's own article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NFL International Series § Brazil or 2025 NFL season § Regular season both of which cover the game as an WP:ATD. The latter is probably preferable to the former as there is more prose. The game itself is WP:MILL. There is a bit of coverage, but I do not find it to meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 20:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NFL International Series § Brazil as an WP:ATD. But 2025 NFL season § Regular season is also an appropriate target. But I prefer the former as the main notability of the game is that it took place in Brazil. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why I, as merely the AFC approver, was noticed of this on my talk page, when User:HoodedBeast09 was the first major contributor to the article with an account, but redirecting to NFL International Series would not adequately reflect the fact that this was the first NFL regular season game to be broadcast live on YouTube as a media outlet. This game is highly notable as an NFL marketing exercise in ways that do not neatly fit into any other single article. BD2412 T 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that it was the first game on YouTube really make it notable? Because then you could argue we need an article for the first game Fox ever broadcast in 1994, the first game ever broadcast by Netflix last year on Christmas, etc. Red0ctober22 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider it notable not for the specific provider, but for the medium. This is like being the first game ever broadcast on television, or broadcast in color, or on a cable channel. I would think, media coverage permitting, we should have articles on all of those milestones. I think that this being the second-ever game played in South America is also a point of notability, as is the viral Mr. Beast promotion. BD2412 T 03:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 You approved this article for mainspace based on the following novel aspects — which I don't agree with:

being played in Brazil — as this was not the first game played in Brazil or South America, nor the only international game played this year, as there were six others, in itself doesn't make it notable.

first NFL game broadcast on YouTube — I agree with Red0ctober22 100%. Could you tell me the articles for the first games broadcast on these other medium?

having a viral MrBeast promo — Why is this notable?
Assadzadeh (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I approved the article based on the breadth of coverage of multiple aspects of the event in reliable sources, which need not be dependent on the specific notability of any single one of those aspects. As for previous medium-entering games, the absence of articles on these does not demonstrate that articles should not exist. The first such game is notable enough to be reported on fifty years after the fact. BD2412 T 04:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, I agree with BD2412. This is a significant game and would be hard to note all of this in a small list in the note section on a Wikipedia page. I believe that there is a lot tied to this game, especially being the first game on YouTube, and the whole viral thing with MrBeast. Even though it's another international game, I believe that it has enough meat in the article along with several reliable sources that it should count as it's own page. HoodedBeast 21:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not convinced that this passes WP:NEVENT. Most of the coverage is WP:MILL and does not establish why it is more notable than any other regular season NFL games. Content on MrBeast's involvement can be covered at his own article. I don't support a redirect either as this is not a likely search term on its own. MidnightMayhem (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NFL International Series § Brazil per WP:ROUTINE. I mean, it's not the first Brazil game and nothing controversial happened that changed the game. Anything else can be a blurb or trivia to the season article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crufty trivia which is lightyears away from being a historical game. A historical game would be a game that is talked about in the year 2055. Oppose a redirect. Geschichte (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not exactly sure what’s so important to justify this article. The article's name implies that it’s about the game, but instead it focuses on other things not related to it. Being the first game broadcast on YouTube isn’t particularly significant, as games nowadays get streamed all the time, but we don’t have articles about those (Heck, I even see some games streamed on TikTok!). And I really don’t understand the whole Mr. Beast viral thing. Nobody's talking about that anymore, so can you really call it viral if it was talked about for only a week? Perhaps someone can provide a more compelling explanation for retaining this article, but I don't see it at the moment. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the international series as listed seems fine. This isn't the Miracle on Ice or the 1968 Mets, long way from a notable game. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally lacking in sustained coverage and it is an extremely unlikely search target. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NFL International Series § Brazil as an WP:ATD. But really merge, don't delete any info. Eyecatching that The NFL, which controls these things, should choose to use the promo it did and the broadcast method it did for the first time for an international. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge due to the novel method of coverage and halftime show, not that the game was particularly notable.

Calwatch (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does this qualify as a WP:EVENT? I don't believe it does. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if the article should be merged or simply deleted. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging with or redirecting to NFL International Series#Brazil are not the correct options, because that article is mostly a summary of the games played in the series rather than the notability of a single game. Redirecting to Chargers–Chiefs rivalry is a better option, since the fact that it was streamed exclusively for free on YouTube (one of the reasons why this article was approved in the first place) is already mentioned in the rivalry article. Assadzadeh (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to stop us from putting in that statement into the summary. Conyo14 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The summary that I was referring to is the Results section. I suppose it could be added to the History section, but then it would get lost among everything else. So, why not also add the Mr. Beast promo to the rivalry article? Assadzadeh (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would support this merge/redirect too. Solves the problem of the two matchups between the teams in the season, as both are in the rivalry, but only one was notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MrBeast cruft? I looked for similar articles figuring there might be one somewhere about any of the stupid overseas games, and couldnt find one. Simply not notable to have a run of the mill game like this, despite some of the uniqueness to it. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Metallurgist: This is an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument. We absolutely should have articles on some of those games, beginning with the 2007 Miami Dolphins–New York Giants game at Wembley Stadium in London, the first ever NFL game played outside North America. BD2412 T 18:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Considering that there isn't an article about the 2007 Miami Dolphins–New York Giants game tells me that it wasn't notable enough for an editor to take the time to create it. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  That's a nonsense argument. Wikipedia is missing tons of clearly notable subjects. I routinely create articles on missing U.S. state supreme court chief justices, which no editor has taken the time to create. If that were a valid argument, we would never create any new articles about past persons or events, because they must not be notable due to not having previously been created. BD2412 T 02:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:EVENTCRITERIA specifically states "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." Consideng that there is no longer any coverage about this game or the 2007 game, I would say that they are both not notable. Assadzadeh (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the information into either Chargers-Chiefs rivalry or MrBeast - it’s notable but not needed in its own article. (Also, can someone explain why all the rivalry articles are semi protected? Seems unnecessary.)Chargers2025 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this edit was this user's very first edit on Wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about the rivalry articles was answered here. Assadzadeh (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus against the existence of a standalone article, but no agreement as to a merge target, and considerable support for outright deletion. Should we preserve any content, and if so where should it go?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If any content is to be preserved, it could be added to Chargers–Chiefs rivalry. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean same with NFL International Series. Perhaps we can pull off the band aid, place a blurb or a sentence in both places and then just proceed with a delete. It feels as if consensus is headed that way. Conyo14 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if it's added to NFL International Series, it will just get lost in the History section. Assadzadeh (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an issue? I personally don't see that as one. Conyo14 (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:NEVENT and, as others have already noted, this appears to be mainly WP:CRUFT as it pertains to MrBeast. I also don't see anything worth merging because the relevant team season articles already include the most pertinent information. Let'srun (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is no sources and almost no content at the section in Chargers-Chiefs rivalry, thus more information should be merged if a merge is the agreed outcome.~2026-34519 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to wait for this discussion to end to add missing sources there. BD2412 T 17:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions